STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusSAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

                          [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1105                          1105


                    STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.                               A
                                  v.
             SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6490 of 2014)
                       NOVEMBER 23, 2021
                                                                         B
           [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
      Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – ss.
3 and 4 – Applicability of – Land acquisition proceedings under
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Land in question
was declared as access vacant land by Competent Authority as well
as Appellate authority – Writ Petition against the orders of the         C
authorities was dismissed for non-prosecution – Restoration
application dismissed observing that fresh petition might be filed, if
permissible – The fresh writ petition High Court by interim order
directed that the authorities might take over the possession of the
vacant surplus land – The State took the stand that possession of        D
the surplus land had already been taken over on 25.04.1988 –
However, the High Court allowed the petition on the ground that
the 1976 Act had been repealed and the compensation for surplus
land had not been paid – The State filed appeal before the Supreme
Court – Held: Before declaring the proceedings as having abated
in view of ss. 3 and 4 of 1999 Act, it has to be considered and          E
decided whether possession of the surplus land has been taken
over by the Government – In absence of such possession, the
proceedings cannot be declared as having abated – In the impugned
judgment High Court has failed to consider and has not given any
specific finding on the aspect of possession – Failure to pay the        F
compensation, cannot raise presumption as to failure of possession
– Matter remanded to High Court to decide the same afresh – High
Court is also directed to consider the maintainability of the fresh
writ petition as the previous writ petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution.
                                                                         G
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It cannot
be disputed that in the impugned judgment and order the High
                                                                         H
                                1105
1106           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     Court has not at all considered the merits of the case and has
       quashed and set aside the order passed by the Competent
       Authority dated 01.03.1984 and the order passed by the First
       Appellate Court – Board of Revenue dated 05.05.1987 solely on
       the ground that the Act, 1976 has been repealed and that the
       compensation for the surplus land has not been paid. The High
 B
       Court has noted that in the resolution adopting the Repeal Act,
       1999, it has been declared that no compensation should be paid
       for lands, possession of which has not been taken over by the
       State Government after vesting under Section 10(3) of the Act,
       1976 and the legal process initiated under the said Act will also
 C     be closed. [Para 4][1112-B-E]
             2. The High Court has not at all properly appreciated and
       considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. A fair reading
       of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 makes it clear that all
       proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made
 D     under the principal Act (Act, 1976) pending immediately before
       the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999, before any court,
       tribunal or other authority shall abate. Section 4 of the Repeal
       Act shall not apply provided possession of land has been taken
       over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by
       the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.
 E     Therefore, if the possession of the surplus land/land has been
       taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised
       by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent
       authority, in that case, the proceedings relating to any order made
       under the principal Act, 1976 shall not abate, meaning thereby
 F     that the Repeal Act, 1999 shall not affect all those proceedings
       with respect to the land of which the possession has been taken
       over. Therefore, before declaring the proceedings as having
       abated in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, it has
       to be considered and decided whether possession of the surplus
       land/land has been taken over by the State Government or any
 G     person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or
       by the competent authority or not. If it is found and held that the
       possession of the surplus land has been taken over, in that case,
       the proceedings shall not be declared as having been abated.
       [Paras 4.1 and 4.2][1112-F-G; 1113-F-H; 1114-A-C]
 H
      STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                       1107
                    THROUGH LRS.

       3. In the present case, in the impugned judgment and order,      A
the Division Bench of the High Court has not at all considered
and/or given any specific findings on the possession being taken
over by the Tehsildar on 25.04.1988. There is no discussion at
all on the aspect whether the possession taken over by the
Tehsildar. It appears that solely on the ground that the payment
                                                                        B
of compensation has not been made and ad interim order was
operating, the High Court has quashed and set aside the orders
passed by the Competent Authority as well as the First Appellate
Court. However, the High Court has not properly appreciated
and considered the fact that the payment of compensation has
nothing to do with the taking over of possession. Payment of            C
compensation under the Act, 1976 and taking over the possession
after the notification issued under Section 10(3)/10(5) of the Act,
1976, both are different and distinct. Even assuming that the
compensation has not been paid, in that case also, it cannot be
presumed that the possession was not taken over. [Paras 4.3 and
                                                                        D
4.4][1114-C-E]
       4. The Division Bench of the High Court has also misread
and misinterpreted the resolution/notification dated 24.07.2002.
As per the said clarification dated 24.07.2002 no compensation
should be paid for land, possession of which has not been taken
over by the Government after vesting u/s. 10(3) of the Urban            E
Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the legal process
initiated under the said Act is also to be closed. As per clause (ii)
where the possession of the land has been taken over and the
compensation has not been paid or partly paid, steps should be
taken for payment of compensation. Therefore, even as per the           F
said clarification dated 24.07.2002, where the possession of the
land has been taken over and the compensation has not been
paid or party paid, the steps were required to be taken for payment
of compensation. It does not speak and/or clarify that if the
compensation is not paid, the possession is presumed to be not
taken and/or the legal process initiated under the Act, 1976 will       G
be closed. The High Court has misread and misinterpreted the
clarification notification dated 24.07.2002 and even the resolution
dated 05.04.2002. [Paras 4.4 and 4.5][1114-F; 1115-B-E]

                                                                        H
1108            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A            5. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has also not
       considered the interim order dated 10.06.1994 in its true spirit.
       In the ex parte ad interim order dated 10.06.1994, the High Court
       has ordered that the authorities may take over possession of the
       vacant surplus land but will not change the nature or character of
       the land until further orders from the court. The interim order,
 B
       as worded, is not conclusive proof either way on the question of
       possession. [Para 4.6][1115-F-G]
              6. Even in the impugned judgment and order, the Division
       Bench of the High Court has observed that since the Act, 1976
       has been repealed, the land belonging to the original writ
 C     petitioners shall be given back to them. Meaning thereby, it can
       be said that even according to the High Court also the possession
       of the surplus land was not with the original writ petitioners.
       Whereas, this observation is not a finding on whether possession
       was taken. Be that as it may, as the High Court has not at all
 D     dealt with the petition on merits, the impugned judgment and
       order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same
       deserves to be quashed and set aside and the writ petition has to
       be remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh.
       The question whether possession was taken over being
       primordial must be examined with acuity and thoroughly.
 E     [Para 4.7][1116-A-D]
              7. The High Court is also to consider submissions on behalf
       of the State on the maintainability of the subsequent writ petition,
       as the earlier writ petition being OJC No.2550 of 1987 was
       dismissed for non-prosecution in which also the order passed by
 F     the Competent Authority dated 01.03.1984 and the order passed
       by the Board of Revenue dated 05.05.1987 were under challenge,
       which were also the subject matter of the subsequent writ petition
       being OJC No.4048 of 1994. The High Court is also to consider
       the observations made by the High court in the order passed in
       restoration application being M.J.C. No.10 of 1994 filed for
 G     restoring the OJC No.2550 of 1987 by which the High Court
       dismissed the restoration application with observation that the
       original writ petitioner may file a fresh petition, if permissible.
       Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has also to
       interpret and consider the expression “if permissible”.
 H     [Para 5][1116-F-H; 1117-A]
      STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                             1109
                    THROUGH LRS.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6490                     A
of 2014.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2009 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No.4048 of 1994.
      Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv. for the Appellants.
                                                                              B
     Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Praveena Gautam, Pawan
Shukla, Raja Ram, Aman S. Sharma, Pranav Monga, Advs. for the
Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                          C
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Orissa in OJC
No.4048 of 1994 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondents herein – original writ petitioners –
original land owners and has quashed and set aside the orders passed by
the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)         D
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1976”) declaring Ac.
0.865-7 area of the land as excess vacant land under the provisions of
the Act, 1976, the State has preferred the present appeal.
      2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
                                                                              E
      2.1    That the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1976
             were initiated with respect to the holdings of the original
             writ petitioner No.1 – Sakhi Bewa. By order dated
             01.03.1984, the Competent Authority under the Act, 1976
             declared Ac. 0.865-7 as excess vacant land. Final statement
             under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was issued on 27.03.1984.       F
      2.2    That thereafter a notification under Section 10(1) of the
             Act, 1976 was issued on 30.04.1984 with respect to the
             land declared as excess vacant land. The original landowners
             filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in the month
             of May, 1984. A declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act,      G
             1976 was published on 26.10.1984. That thereafter the
             Competent Authority sent a notice dated 30.11.1984 under
             Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 to the respondents – original
             landowners to deliver vacant possession of the excess vacant
             land to Tehsildar.
                                                                              H
1110     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     2.3   That an appeal was preferred by the original landowners
             against the order passed by the Competent Authority
             declaring Ac. 0.865-7 land as excess vacant land, which
             came to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue – Appellate
             Court vide order dated 05.05.1987.
 B     2.4   That according to the State the Tehsildar, Sadar, Cuttack,
             has taken over the possession of the land on 25.04.1988.
             The respondents – original writ petitioners filed a writ petition
             being OJC No.2550 of 1987 before the High Court
             challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority
             dated 01.03.1984 as well as the order passed by the First
 C           Appellate Court – Board of Revenue. The said writ petition
             came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.11.1991.
             After a period of approximately three years a restoration
             application was filed being M.J.C. No.10 of 1994. But the
             same came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by
 D           observing that the grounds for the delay are far from
             satisfactory and that there is no justification either for
             condoning the delay and annulling the earlier order of
             dismissal. However, the Division Bench observed that the
             petitioner may file a fresh petition, if permissible.That
             thereafter the respondents herein filed a fresh petition before
 E           the High Court being OJC No.4048 of 1994 again challenging
             the order passed by the competent authority dated 01.03.1984
             as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated
             05.05.1987 which were as such subject matter of writ
             petition being OJC No.2550 of 1987, which was dismissed
 F           for non-prosecution on 01.11.1991. That an exparte ad
             interim order was passed by the High Court on 10.06.1994
             and it was ordered that the authorities may take over the
             possession of the vacant surplus land but will not change
             the nature or character of the land until further orders from
             the court. At this stage, at the cost of repetition it is observed
 G           that all throughout, the case on behalf of State was that
             even prior to said exparte ad interim order, the possession
             of the surplus land was already taken over by the Tehsildar
             on 25.04.1988. A counter was filed on behalf of State
             opposing the writ petition in which it was also specifically
 H
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                           1111
       THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      pointed out that the possession of the surplus land has been    A
      taken over by the Tehsildar on 25.04.1988. The respondents,
      however, dispute the said position, their contention being
      that they have always been in possession of the property
      and the order dated 25.04.1988 is a paper order and does
      not reflect the true and correct position. Without commenting
                                                                      B
      on the merits, it would be relevant to note here that the
      order dated 25.04.1988 does refer to demarcation by the
      authorities and that the surplus land was taken over by F.I.
      Sadar II and Amin Sri G.C. Pattanaik on 02.04.1988, but
      this being a question of fact, it would have to be examined
      and ascertained. The ascertainment of this fact is necessary    C
      in view of the enactment of the Repeal Act, as noticed
      below.
2.5   That thereafter the Act, 1976 came to be repealed by the
      Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
      (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal Act, 1999”) vide        D
      notification dated 22.03.1999. That vide resolution dated
      05.04.2002, the State of Orissa adopted the Urban Land
      (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
2.6   That thereafter on misreading and misinterpretation of the
      notification / communication dated 24.07.2002 and without       E
      even dealing with the case on behalf of the State that the
      possession of the surplus land has already been taken over
      on 25.04.1988 and solely on the ground that compensation
      for the surplus land has not been paid, the Division Bench
      of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has
      quashed and set aside the order passed by the Competent         F
      Authority dated 01.03.1984 as well as the order passed by
      the First Appellate Court – Board of Revenue dated
      05.05.1987. The High Court also further observed that as
      the Act, 1976 stands repealed, the lands belonging to the
      respondents- landowners shall be given back to them.            G
2.7   Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
      judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
      High Court of Orissa, the State has preferred the present
      appeal.
                                                                      H
1112               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A           3. We have heard Shri Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel
       appearing on behalf of the State and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned
       senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
              4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
       parties and having gone through and considered the impugned judgment
 B     and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and
       chronological dates and events narrated hereinabove, we are of the
       opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
       is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It cannot be disputed that in
       the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not at all considered
       the merits of the case and has quashed and set aside the order passed
 C     by the Competent Authority dated 01.03.1984 and the order passed by
       the First Appellate Court – Board of Revenue dated 05.05.1987 solely
       on the ground that the Act, 1976 has been repealed and that the
       compensation for the surplus land has not been paid. The High Court
       has noted that in the resolution adopting the Repeal Act, 1999, it has
 D     been declared that no compensation should be paid for lands, possession
       of which has not been taken over by the State Government after vesting
       under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 and the legal process initiated under
       the said Act will also be closed.
             4.1 That it appears and though it is not clear from paragraph 8,
 E     which is the only paragraph, in which some observations are made by
       the High Court, the High Court has observed that as an interim order
       was operative and nothing has been averred regarding payment of
       compensation during pendency of the writ petition, no useful purpose
       would be served to remand the matter since the Act, 1976 has been
       repealed and consequently, the High Court has quashed and set aside
 F     the orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the First
       Appellate Court. However, the High Court has not at all properly
       appreciated and considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
       Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 read as under:-
             “3. Savings.—(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect—
 G
             (a)     the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of
                     Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the
                     State Government or any person duly authorised by the State
                     Government in this behalf or by the competent authority;

 H
      STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                              1113
             THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      (b)    the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-           A
             section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder,
             notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;
      (c)    any payment made to the State Government as a condition
             for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20.
      (2) Where—                                                               B

      (a)    any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government
             under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but
             possession of which has not been taken over by the State
             Government or any person duly authorised by the State
             Government in this behalf or by the competent authority;          C
             and
      (b)    any amount has been paid by the State Government with
             respect to such land
      then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if         D
      any, has been refunded to the State Government.
      4. Abatement of legal proceedings.—All proceedings relating
      to any order made or purported to be made under the principal
      Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act,
      before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate:
                                                                               E
      Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating
      to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such
      proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has
      been taken over by the State Government or any person duly
      authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the
                                                                               F
      competent authority.”
       4.2 A fair reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999
makes it clear that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported
to be made under the principal Act (Act, 1976) pending immediately
before the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999, before any court,
tribunal or other authority shall abate. Section 4 of the Repeal Act shall     G
not apply provided possession of land has been taken over by the State
Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in
this behalf or by the competent authority.Therefore, if the possession of
the surplus land/land has been taken over by the State Government or
any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by        H
1114              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     the competent authority, in that case, the proceedings relating to any
       order made under the principal Act, 1976 shall not abate, meaning thereby
       that the Repeal Act, 1999 shall not affect all those proceedings with
       respect to the land of which the possession has been taken over.
       Therefore, before declaring the proceedings as having abated in view of
       Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, it has to be considered and
 B
       decided whether possession of the surplus land/land has been taken over
       by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State
       Government in this behalf or by the competent authority or not. If it is
       found and held that the possession of the surplus land has been taken
       over, in that case, the proceedings shall not be declared as having been
 C     abated.
              4.3 In the present case, in the impugned judgment and order, the
       Division Bench of the High Court has not at all considered and/or given
       any specific findings on the possession being taken over by the Tehsildar
       on 25.04.1988. There is no discussion at all on the aspect whether the
 D     possession taken over by the Tehsildar. It appears that solely on the
       ground that the payment of compensation has not been made and ad
       interim order was operating, the High Court has quashed and set aside
       the orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the First
       Appellate Court. However, the High Court has not properly appreciated
       and considered the fact that the payment of compensation has nothing
 E     to do with the taking over of possession. Payment of compensation under
       the Act, 1976 and taking over the possession after the notification issued
       under Section 10(3)/10(5) of the Act, 1976, both are different and distinct.
              4.4 Even assuming that the compensation has not been paid, in
       that case also, it cannot be presumed that the possession was not taken
 F     over. It appears that even the Division Bench of the High Court has also
       misread and misinterpreted the resolution/notification dated 24.07.2002.
       By the resolution/notification dated 24.07.2002, the following clarifications
       were issued by the State Government:-
              “Thus as per the provisions laid down under the said Repeal Act,
 G     the following clarifications are issued.
             i)       No compensation should be paid for land, possession of
                     which has not been taken over by the Govt. after vesting
                     U/s. 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,
                     1976. The Legal process initiated under the said Act will
 H                   also be closed.
      STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                              1115
             THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      ii)    Where possession of land has been taken over and                  A
             compensation has not been paid or partly paid, steps should
             be taken for payment of compensation.
      iii)   Continuance of Govt. Control over the exempted land is no
             more required with effect from 5.4.2002.”
        4.5 As per the said clarification dated 24.07.2002 no compensation     B
should be paid for land, possession of which has not been taken over by
the Government after vesting U/s. 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 and the legal process initiated under the said Act
is also to be closed. As per clause (ii) where the possession of the land
has been taken over and the compensation has not been paid or partly           C
paid, steps should be taken for payment of compensation. Therefore,
even as per the said clarification dated 24.07.2002, where the possession
of the land has been taken over and the compensation has not been paid
or party paid, the steps were required to be taken for payment of
compensation. It does not speak and/or clarify that if the compensation
is not paid, the possession is presumed to be not taken and/or the legal       D
process initiated under the Act, 1976 will be closed. If we consider
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that
the High Court has misread and misinterpreted the clarification notification
dated 24.07.2002 and even the resolution dated 05.04.2002. Though the
resolution/clarification dated 24.07.2002 is in two parts reproduced           E
hereinabove, the High Court has not at all considered and dealt with part
(ii) of the clarification namely “where the possession of the land has
been taken over and the compensation has not been paid or partly paid,
steps should be taken for payment of compensation.”
        4.6 Even the Division Bench of the High Court has also not
considered the interim order dated 10.06.1994 in its true spirit. In the ex    F
parte ad interim order dated 10.06.1994, the High Court has ordered
that the authorities may take over possession of the vacant surplus land
but will not change the nature or character of the land until further orders
from the court.
        4.7 At this stage, it is required to be noted that according to the    G
State, the possession of the surplus land was already taken over on
25.04.1988 and all throughout it was the case on behalf of the State that
the possession of surplus land was taken over on 25.04.1988. At this
stage, it is also required to be noted that interim order dated 10.06.1994
was an ex parte ad interim order. The interim order, as worded, is not
                                                                               H
1116             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     conclusive proof either way on the question of possession. Even in the
       impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has
       observed that since the Act, 1976 has been repealed, the land belonging
       to the original writ petitioners shall be given back to them. Meaning
       thereby, it can be said that even according to the High Court also the
       possession of the surplus land was not with the original writ petitioners.
 B
       Whereas, this observation is not a finding on whether possession was
       taken. Be that as it may, as the High Court has not at all dealt with the
       petition on merits and has allowed the writ petition on the aforesaid
       grounds only, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
       cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
 C     and the writ petition has to be remanded to the High Court to decide the
       same afresh and to consider the aspects stated hereinabove. The
       observations and views expressed by us are tentative and prima facie.
       The question whether possession was taken over being primordial must
       be examined with acuity and thoroughly.
 D            5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
       present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
       the High Court dated 30.07.2009 passed in OJC No.4048 of 1994 is
       hereby quashed and set aside. Petition is remanded to the Division Bench
       of the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh. The Division Bench
       of the High Court to consider the case on behalf of the State that the
 E     possession of the surplus land was already taken over by the Tehsildar
       on 25.04.1988. In case it is held that the respondents are not entitled to
       the benefit of the Repeal Act, the High Court would then consider
       submissions on behalf of the State on maintainability of the subsequent
       writ petition.
 F            The High Court is also to consider submissions on behalf of the
       State on the maintainability of the subsequent writ petition, as the earlier
       writ petition being OJC No.2550 of 1987 was dismissed for non-
       prosecution in which also the order passed by the Competent Authority
       dated 01.03.1984 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated
       05.05.1987 were under challenge, which were also the subject matter of
 G     the subsequent writ petition being OJC No.4048 of 1994. The High Court
       is also to consider the observations made by the High court in the order
       passed in restoration application being M.J.C. No.10 of 1994 filed for
       restoring the OJC No.2550 of 1987 by which the High Court dismissed
       the restoration application with observation that the original writ petitioner
 H     may file a fresh petition, if permissible. Therefore, the Division Bench
      STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD)                              1117
             THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

of the High Court has also to interpret and consider the expression “if        A
permissible”.
       On remand, we request the High Court to finally decide and dispose
of the writ petition being OJC No.4048 of 1994 as ordered to be restored
to the file of the High Court and we request the High Court to decide
and dispose of the writ petition expeditiously preferably within a period      B
of six months from the date of receipt of the order. It is made clear and
observed that all the contentions which may be available to the respective
parties are kept open, to be dealt with and considered by the Division
Bench of the High Court in accordance with law. It is also observed that
the High Court shall decide all issues including issues, which are observed
hereinabove.                                                                   C
       Present appeal is allowed accordingly with costs, which is
quantified at Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the respondents with the
National Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from
today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
                                                                               D
Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H