9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of a settlement order passed under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, the power of review/recall of orders by the authorities, and the jurisdiction of the O.E.A. Collector in settling land disputes. Validity of Settlement Order: The respondent, a deity, obtained a settlement order for certain lands under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, which achieved finality as no appeal was filed against it. Subsequently, appellants sought a review of the settlement order based on procedural irregularities. The Additional District Magistrate remanded the case, citing non-compliance with statutory provisions. However, the High Court set aside the review order, emphasizing that the power to review was not vested in the O.E.A. Collector. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the review sought did not fall under the Act's provisions for review. Power of Review/Recall: The Act only provides for review under Section 38A for clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The O.E.A. Collector's attempt to recall the settlement order was challenged, leading to a discussion on the inherent power of courts to recall orders under specific circumstances, such as fraud, mistake, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings null and void, while errors in jurisdiction require proper legal challenge. Jurisdiction of O.E.A. Collector: The appellants' challenge to the settlement order was primarily based on the alleged improper service of notice, not lack of jurisdiction. The High Court found that the notice was issued, albeit with missing pages, and the O.E.A. Collector had jurisdiction to settle the matter. The Court emphasized that even if the settlement application was filed beyond the prescribed time, it did not render the order without jurisdiction. The O.E.A. Collector's order was set aside as lacking jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between lack of jurisdiction and mere errors in exercising jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to set aside the O.E.A. Collector's order as lacking jurisdiction and clarifying the grounds for recalling orders based on lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or mistakes prejudicing parties.
|
