Petitioner complained of non-implementation of a direction by the Additional Commissioner to conduct a field inquiry. The Court held that ancillary power to implement an order lay with the issuing authority itself, advising the petitioner to file an application for implementation. The writ petition was disposed of without further direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.17717 of 2015
08.12.2015 The grievance of the petitioner is that though a direction was made by the Add
itional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur in R.P. No.15 of 2012 to the Tah
asildar to conduct field inquiry to ascertain the possession of the petitioner and pass order,
but the later is sitting over the matter.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Adv
ocate for the State-opposite party.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement in the case of State of Karnataka v
s. Vishwabharati House Building Cooperative Society and others, (2003) 2 SCC 412, the apex Cou
rt held that every authority has ancillary/incidental power to implement its own order.
In view of the same, it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate applicat
ion before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur for implementa
tion of its order.
The petition is disposed of.
2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Cooperative Society and othersDistinguished¶4
State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Cooperative Society and others, (2003) 2 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court