ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the article in question. This would show that knowledge or connivance is assumed unless contrary is proved. The knowledge or connivance about which section 56 (2-c) has spoken is not confined to the owner but takes within its fold the knowledge or connivance of the agent, if any, or of the person in charge of the article in question. Not only this, this section further states that to escape the order of confiscation, it must be further proved that each of the concerned persons had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against the use of the article in question in respect of the commission of the forest offence.” 10. The aforesaid decision has also been subsequently followed in the case of Malatilata Samal and others v. State of Orissa and others: 94 (2002) CLT 290. This Court also took note of the views of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan: AIR 2000 SC 2729, where it was held that liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized which is liable to confiscation is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner had given the vehicle to his driver, who admittedly himself knowingly used the vehicle for commission of forest offence. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner instructed the driver not to use the vehicle for illegal purposes and that he had no knowledge of the illegal user of the vehicle by his driver, he cannot escape the liability of confiscation as his driver, who was the agent in-charge of the vehicle, knowingly used the same for commission of forest offence. 12. In the context of the aforesaid established facts and in the light of the settled position of law as seen above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. 18
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI,ACJ & SANJU PANDA, J. MIRZA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.* JANUARY 14,2010. ORISSA GOVERNMENT LAND SETTLEMENT ACT, 1962 (ACT 33 NO. OF1962) – SEC.7-A (3) Land sanctioned infavour of the father of the petitioner as a concession for his serving in Army – He was declared eligible by the State Government – Resumption of land after the death of the father of the petitioner – Order challenged – In this case land settled in favour of an ex-army personnel under special lease principles of the Government but not under the provisions of the Act. Held, Suo motu proceeding U/s.7-A(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction which is liable to be quashed. For Petitioner –B.Mohanty For Opp.Parties –State *W.P.(C) NO.12457 OF 2009. In the matter of an application under article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar resuming the land settled in favour of the father of the petitioner and to restore the said land to the petitioner. Facts of the case are that Mirza Bhikan, the father of the petitioner who was in Military service was declared by the Home Department of the State Government eligible for concession of land as per the Home Department Resolution No.20827/Poll. Dated 7.7.1969. Thereafter he filed a petition for allotment of Govt. land as admissible to Jawans out of Plot No.329 under khata no.274 of mouza Alakar. As after enquiry the aforesaid land was found to be of Chotajungle kisam and cannot be considered for settlement, the petitioner was asked to select another piece of land pursuant to which the petitioner prayed for allotment of land out of plot no.53 under khata no.201 in mouza Gothapatna. Considering the application of the petitioner and after due enquiry, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by order dated 25.1.1990 passed in W.L.Case No.945 of 1987 settled Ac.5.000 acres of land appertaining to plot no.53 under khata no.201 in mouza Gothapatna in favour of the father of the petitioner. Thereafter the aforesaid land was mutated in the name of the father of the petitioner and he continued to possess the land by paying rent. Case of the petitioner is that his father after prolonged illness died on 1.3.2001 and the petitioner who was staying 19
Page 1 and 2: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3: SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 7 and 8: MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10: 23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 15 and 16: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18: NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24: ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26: 39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30: 43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32: 45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34: “ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36: 49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38: The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40: 53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42: 55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44: 11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46: comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48: 61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50: 63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52: ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 55 and 56:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82:
95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84:
97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88:
101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90:
103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92:
105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94:
107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96:
109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98:
111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102:
115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106:
119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108:
121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110:
123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112:
125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116:
129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120:
133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122:
135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124:
137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126:
139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130:
143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132:
145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134:
147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136:
149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138:
151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140:
153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144:
157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148:
161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150:
163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152:
165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154:
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?