The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction in executing an encroachment revision order, issuing an observation that the matter would be considered if directly approached, and returning the certified copy of the order.
The writ application was disposed of with an observation; the certified copy was returned upon substitution of a photocopy.
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.
OJC NO. 15686 OF 1997
14. 08.11.2016 The grievance in the writ application is against the i
naction of opposite party no. 2 in the matter of carrying out the order dated 16.11.1988 under
Annexure-3 passed by opposite party no. 3 in Encroachment Revision No. 01 of 1988.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party no. 3
has not yet acted upon the said order of the opposite party no. 2.
In view of the limited grievance of the petitioners, considering the submission of lea
rned counsel for the petitioners, the writ application is disposed of with an observation that
in the event, the petitioners move opposite party no. 3 in the matter, the same shall be cons
idered and disposed of in accordance with law. Accepting the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners, the certified copy of the order of opposite party no. 2 under Annexure-3 be
returned to him on substitution of duly attested Xerox copy.
D. Dash, J.
Narayan
= 2 =
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ application for inaction regarding an encroachment revision order should be disposed of with an observation.
Petitioners
Opposite party no. 2
Opposite party no. 3
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court