STATE OF ORISSA versus LOCHAN NAYAK (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 31-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF ORIS SA 
A 
v. 
LOCHAN NAY AK (DEAD) BY LRS. 
JULY 3 I, 2003 
[V.N.KHARE, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 
Article 226-Writ petition-Delay in filing-Allotment of lam:f to C 
respondents under The Orissa Land Reforms Act cancelled in 1986, as 1the 
same was found illegal-Writ petitions before High Court in 1992 challenging 
the cancellation-Writ petitions allowed-Government filed appeal before 
Supreme Court contending that the writ petitions filed by respondents before 
The High Court were extremely belated and suffered from /aches-Held, the 
matters were decided in the year 1986, whereas the writ petitions were flied D 
in the year 1992-There was an inordinate delay for which no sufficient cause 
was shown before the High Court and the High Court thus ought not to have 
entertained those writ petitions-Revenue authorities have directed to initiate 
de novo proceedings for allotment of land and if respondents found eligible, 
their case may also be considered-Delay/laches-Orissa Land Reforms Act, E 
1960-0rissa Land Reforms (General )Rules, 1965-R.33-A(JO)(bb). 
I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1681-1686 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.93, 25.2.93, l I. l .93, 4.2.93, F 
l 8. l .93 and l 8.1.93 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. Nos. 9526, 46 l, 9622, 
9524, 8295 and 462 of 1992. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1617, 1618-45, 1646-54 and 1655-80 of 2003. 
J.K. Das, Janaranjan Das, G. Biswal, Ms. M. Gahlot, S. Mishra, Anu1u1 
Ch. Pradhan, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Bhupender Yadav, f'1s. 
Babita Yadav and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair for the appearing parties. 
63 
G 
H 
A 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The respondents herein were allotted land under the provisions of the 
Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under 
the provisions of law, which then existed, the Court was empowered to cancel 
B the order of allotment within one year, if the same was found to be contrary 
to law. In the year 1980, by virtue to Rule 38-A (IO)(bb) of the Orissa Land 
Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the 
Commissioner of Division was given the power to suo motu cancel the land 
at any time. It appears that the Commissioner of Division in the year 1984, 
in exercise of his power, revoked the allotment of land made in favour of the 
C respondents, having found that there were some procedural irregularities in 
the matter of allotment. In the year 1986, the respondents herein filed petitions 
under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Orissa, 
challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, revoking the 
settlement of land in their favour. The High Court allowed the writ petitions 
D and remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer and concerned Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate for deciding the matter afresh. In the same year, the Revenue 
Officer cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the respondents having 
found that the said allotment was illegal. In the year .1992, the respondents 
herein filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High 
E Court of Orissa. The High Court allowed the writ petition by reason of the 
impugned order dated 4.2.93, inter alia, on the ground that the power of suo 
motu revision has been exercised after an inordinate delay. Aggrieved, the 
State of Orissa has filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions. 
Although there was a considerable delay in filing these appeals, this Court, 
while granting leave, condoned the delay. That is how the matters came up 
F before us. 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as the writ 
petitions filed by the respondents herein were extremely belated and suffered 
from !aches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petitions. We 
G find substance in the argument. What we find here is that the matters were 
decided in the year 1986, whereas· the writ petitions were filed in the year 
1992. There was an inordinate delay for which no sufficient cause was shown 
before the High Court and the High Court thus ought not to have entertained 
those writ petitions. On this short ground, the judgments under challenge 
deserve to be set aside. 
H 
Jl
\>o 
f 
STATEv. LOCHAN NA YAK 
65 
The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 
Before we part with the case, we may obse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.