ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] outside went to pay the rent, the same was not accepted on the ground that the land has been restored to the Government. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having been allotted to his father under the Government Grants Act could not have been resumed by applying the provision of Section 3-B of O.G.L.S. His further contention is that no notice having been issued to his father or after his death to the petitioner before cancellation of the allotment, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears from the order of allotment that the land allotted to the father of the petitioner was reserved for settlement among the Jawans. It futher appears from the order of allotment that settlement of land with Jawans is governed by the provisions of Govt. Grants Act, 1895 as a measure of reward and not by the provisions of O.G.L.S.Act, 1962. From the impugned order it appears that the case was taken up on receipt of letter dated 15.12.1997 from the A.D.M., Khurda directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for resumption of the land in question on the ground that Sri R.C.Mishra, I.A.S. who was entrusted with the enquiry into the lease cases sanctioned in Bhubaneswar Tahasil also pointed out irregularities in regard to sanction of lease by the Tahasildar under the Govt. Grants Act and therefore it was necessary to resume the land. By the impugned order, the Tahasildar resumed the land, cancelled the patta issued in favour of the father of the petitioner and restored the land to Govt. holding. A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in Rajkishore Das V. State of Orissa and others, 1994(II) OLR 149 wherein an ex army personnel challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar canceling the land settled with him as war lease. In that case this Court held that the settlement of five acres of land in favour of ex-army personnel was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act but the same was made under the lease principles read with Government notifications which made special provision for special categories of persons who could not be treated on the same footing as private individuals. Therefore, suo motu proceeding under Section 7-A(3) of the Act could not be resorted to for examining the correctness or otherwise of the settlement made in favour of a Jawan. In the instant case the land was sanctioned in favour of the father of the petitioner as a concession for his serving in Army during the year 1962-1964 who was declared eligible by the State Government for such concession. The said land was resumed by the Tahasildar on the basis of the letter issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda. This case is therefore covered by the decision of this Court in Rajakishore (supra). In view of the above, we hold that the proceeding initiated for cancellation of the grant in favour of the father of the petitioner was without 20
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA jurisdiction and the order passed there under can not be maintained. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order. Writ petition allowed. 21
Page 1 and 2: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4: SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
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:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?