STATE OF ORISSAversusLOCHAN NAYAK (DEAD) BY LRS.

                             STATE 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.                         G
     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.

                                                                                    H
                                       63
    64                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         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        Jl
    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
                               STATEv. LOCHAN NA YAK                              65

             The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.              A
            Before we part with the case, we may observe that the Revenue Officer/
      Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Collector directed initiation of de-novo proceeding
      and allot the land in accordance with law. The authorities concerned shall
      give effect to the said order and if the respondent is found to be eligible for   B
      grant of lease, his case may also be considered in accordance with law
      alongwith the other eligible persons.
\>o
f     R.P.                                                        Appeals allowed.