AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ananda Chandra Behera, J
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing this writ petition is that, the appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Collector, Balliguda dismissed the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 of the petitioners only on the ground of limitation, because there was 80 days delay in preferring the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 by the petitioners of this writ petition (those were the appellants in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025) assigning the reasons that, the appeal should have been presented within 30 days from the date of the impugned order obtaining the certified copy of the said impugned order, but, the appeal has not been filed within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order, for which, the appeal is beyond the limit prescribed in Odisha Mutation Manual, therefore, the appeal is rejected.
On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection/dismissal of the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 of the petitioners passed on dated 18.02.2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3), the appellants thereof have challenged the same by filing this writ petition being the petitioners praying for quashing the said order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025.
Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
“It is the settled propositions of law that, when courses of substantial justice and the law of technicalities are pitted against each other, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for no other reason, but only in order to comply the principles of natural justice and to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties in deciding the case/appeal on merit after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties instead of dismissing/rejecting the same on any of the technical ground including point of limitation like this matter at hand.”
So, in view of such principles of law, the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) should not have rejected/dismissed the Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 on dated 18.02.2025 filed by the petitioners of this writ petition only on the sole ground of limitation without condoning the delay of 80 days in preferring the appeal. For which, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) rejecting their Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 only on a sole technical ground i.e. limitation without taking the recourse of rendering substantial justice to the parties cannot be sustainable under law.
Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed on dated 18.02.2025 in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed.
In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed on contest.
The impugned order passed on dated 18.02.2025 in Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) is set aside/quashed.
The matter vide Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) to decide the said matter i.e. Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 afresh as per law as expeditiously as possible on merit without questioning about the period of limitation (as the said point has already been negatived/set aside in this Judgment) after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and complying the principles of natural justice in full.
The Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment immediately to the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3).
Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to the petitioners on proper application.
....………………………………….