LexCHANDRADHOJA SAHOO versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1158 CHANDRADHOJA SAHOO v. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 9085 of 2012 etc.) DECEMBER 14, 2012. [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) JUDGMENTS: c Writ petition before High Court - Arising out of orders of revenue authorities with regard to settlement of land with landless persons for agricultural purposes - State authorities alleging the proceedings as forged and fabricated and also resisting the leases as not permissible under the provisions D of Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 - High Court rejecting the claim of the applicant on the basis of provisions of 1948 Act - Held: All courts whose orders are appealab/e and not final, should decide the tis before it on all issues - Such a course of action is necessary to enable the next court in the hierarchy to bring E the proceeding before it to a full and complete conclusion instead of causing a remand of the matter for a decision on the issue(s) that may have been left undetermined - In the instant case, High Court ought not to have split up the two questions as if they were independent of each other and on F that basis ought not to have proceeded to determine the second question without recording acceptable findings on all aspects connected with the first -Order of the High Court discloses mere acceptance of the version of the State as disclosed in the counter affidavit without any attempt to enter G into the core questions that the conflicting claims of the parties had thrown up - Order of High Court is set aside and the matter remanded to it for a de nova decision expeditiously - Orrisa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226. H 1158 CHANDRADHOJA SAHOO v. STATE OF ORISSA 1159 The appellant in C.A. No. 9085 of 2012 stated to have A filed an application claiming himself to be a landless person, which was numbered as WL Case No. 71/1979 before the Tehsildar. By an order dated 26.3.1979, two acres of land comprising plot No. 516 and 301 was settled in his favour for agricultural purposes. However, when in B spite of the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 7.1.2005, the Record of Rights was not corrected in terms of the order dated 26.3.1979, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 281 of 2007 before the High Court, which by order dated 26.2.2007, directed the Tehsildar to comply c with the dire·ctions issued by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 7.1.2005. Thereafter, the State Government filed an application before the Board of Revenue to recall its order dated 7.1.2005. It also filed Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the 0 Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court remanded the matter to the Single Judge for consideration de novo. The appellant then filed Writ petition No. 337 of 2008 challenging the proceedings before the Board of Revenue seeking recall of its order E dated 7.1.2005. The stand of the State Government was that the record of proceedings of WL Case No. 71 of 1979 including the orders dated 26.3.1979 and 28.5.1979 were forged and fabricated. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the subject land having been recorded as "kanta jungle" could not have been leased out as claimed. F The questions for consideration before the High Court were: (i) whether the case record of W.L. Case No. 71 of 1979, including the reports and orders passed therein, were forged and fabricated; and (ii) assuming the G lease as claimed by the appellant to have been granted, whether the same was permissible under the provisions of the Orrisa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948. The High Court held that the subject land being covered by the 1948 Act, the H 1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A lease granted was void and, as such, no legal right could be recognized in the claimant, and issued directions for resumption of the subject land by the State. Aggrieved, the claimant filed C.A. No. 9085 of 2012. The other appeal was filed in similar circumstances. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The fundamental principle of law that all courts whose orders are appealable and not final, should take notice of is that they should decide the lis before it C on all issues as may be raised by the parties though in its comprehension the same can be decided
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.