Shantilata Nayak v. Commnr.,Consolidn.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) NO.7889 OF 2003 Smt.Shantilata Nayak & anr.

....

Petitioner Mr.R.K.Mohanty, Sr.Adv.

-versusCommissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack & ors.

....

Opposite Party(s) Mr.U.K.Sahoo, ASC Mr.S.K.Mishra, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER

15.9.2022 18.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

Order No.

2.

There is technical objection from the side of the private O.Ps. that when there was involvement of eight numbers of Objection Cases with different pleadings, the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority went wrong in making a common judgment involving so many disputes. There is no dispute in such contention by Opposite Parties. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter should go back to the appeal stage for considering each Objection Case involved therein separately.

// 2 // 3.

Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters involved are remitted to the Appellate Authority for redisposal of all the Appeals individually. The Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 28.9.2022 to advance their further submission, if any. There shall be separate registration of the Appeals, if there is no separate registration of the Appeal. All Appeals shall be heard and disposed of independently. For there is a remand order, there shall be fresh adjudication of the matter but within the availability of materials and without being influenced by any of the observations either in the appellate order or revisional order.

4.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K.Rout