06. 17.05.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the orders at Annexures-5 and 6, contended that admittedly, the revision under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”) has been initiated involving some development in Objection case and an appeal arisen therefrom. Shri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the premises that the petitioner was not a party to any of the proceedings involved herein alleged that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act while deciding the matter involving non- parties and the impugned order at Annexure-5 since has affected the non-parties, the petitioner herein ought to have involved the petitioner before finally adjudicating the proceeding involved herein and Annexure-6 since is a consequential order depending on the order at Annexure-5, both orders at Annexures- 5 and 6 should fail. While not disputing the scope and authority of Member, Board of Revenue while exercising power under Section 32 of the Act, Shri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that even assuming the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack has the power to re-open all issues involved therein, but since the cases of the petitioner have been decided in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act, it was necessary to involve W.P.(C). No.5439 of 2018 2 all the parties likely to be affected and then pass the order. In the above premises, Shri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-5 suffers on account of non-compliance of natural justice. Annexure-6 being the order on the outcome of the order at Annexure-5, the same should also be declared bad. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2-State defending the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack involved herein and taking this Court to the discussions involved in the revisional order involving Annexure-5, the appellate order and the cause title involving the writ petition, submitted that even though the petitioner is not party to any of the proceedings, but however since some of the original owner and the vendor of the vendor of the petitioner was party, therefore, this is a case treated to have been adjudicated involving the vendor of the original owner of the land. It is in the above premises, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that for the opportunity to the vendor of the vendors of the petitioner, there appears, there is complete adjudication of the proceeding involved herein. Learned counsel for the State, however, fairly submitted that even though the vendor of the vendors of the petitioner was made party to the proceeding, but he did not contest the matter. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the orders involving different 3 proceedings involved herein that of the appeal proceeding as well as the revision proceeding, this Court finds, though the vendor of the vendors of the petitioner was party and some of the original landowners were party, but for the several transaction taking place in between, none of the persons in possession of the land has been made party. To add to it, the vendor of the vendors of the petitioner even though were made party, but did not contest the proceeding to protect the right of the petitioners. The original landowners also did not bring to the notice of the revisional authority regarding several transactions taking place in the meantime. Considering this aspect of the matter and looking to the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act though this Court finds the revisional authority has the power to enter into all such issues comes to the notice of the Member, Board of Revenue on scrutiny of record while exercising such power and decide all such matters involved therein, but no order should be passed behind such persons who have ultimately been affected that too when vendor of vendors of such parties though made party but did not contest the case in proper spirit. 5. As a result, this Court finds, the revisional order at Annexure-5 suffers on account of not providing reasonable opportunity to contest and hearing to the parties likely to be affected. It is in the above premises, this Court interfering the order at Annexure-5, sets aside the same passed in O.S.S. Case No.1946 of 2003 4 and further as this Court finds, the order at Annexure- 6 is dependant of such illegal order, this Court also interfering the order at Annexure-5 also sets aside the same. But, however considering that the matter needs re-adjudication involving the petitioner, the O.S.S. Case No.1946 of 2003 is remitted back to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for re- adjudication of the proceeding involved therein after providing opportunity of objection as well as hearing to the petitioner as well as the other contestants. A fresh adjudication of the matter be undertaken on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials produced therein, but however, without being influenced by either of the observations in the order at Annexure-5 or of this Court hereinabove. Since the petitioner has made out a case for scope of hearing and contest involving O.S.S. Case No.1946 of 2003, to avoid delay and as the petitioner is not made party, this Court permits to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding by making appropriate application for his addition and contest on the date of appearance fixed by this Court and in such event, such application shall be allowed with order for his participation and contest in the O.S.S. Case No.1946 of 2003. 6. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merit of the case. However, since the matter is decided in presence of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner as well as the contesting opposite parties are all directed to 5 MRS appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack on 5th of June, 2018 along with copy of this order facilitating the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack at Bhubaneswar involving the case indicated hereinabove in the matter of fresh adjudication of the proceeding. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of with interference in the impugned orders at Annexures-5 and 6, but however with order of remand. ………………………….. Biswanath Rath, J. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60