AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 221 wordsThere are two difficulties as far as the present writ appeal is concerned. It is directed against an order dated 17th May, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) 1447 of 2016 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The impugned order appears to have been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ appeal may not be maintainable as such by virtue of the judgment of full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz 2008(II) OLR (FB) 725 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517.
Even on merits, the Court finds that the impugned order merely relegates the parties to the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur for a fresh adjudication of the revision petition after giving an opportunity to hearing all the parties. No prejudice can be to be caused to the present Appellant on that score. It is obvious that all points available in law to the parties can be raised in the fresh hearing of the revision petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no merit in the present writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed as such.
………………………..