Remanded

R.Kamalakar Rao v. State

Orissa HC21 Sept 2016WP(C)/11604/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the authority reopening proceedings under Section 36(A) of the OLR Act failed by deciding the matter without affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The court set aside the impugned orders dated 10.9.1998, 24.12.2004, and 25.1.2005.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders dated 10.9.1998, 24.12.2004, and 25.1.2005; remanded matter to Revenue Officer to rehear affording hearing; directed parties to appear on 3rd October 2016; directed conclusio

In assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has the sole objection that the author ity while reopening a proceeding under Section 36(A) of the OLR Act for fresh disposal of a ma tter involving ceiling surplus land was required to issue notice to the parties concerned and the matter should have been decided after hearing the parties concerned. The authority reopeni ng the matter decided the same only on examining the materials available on record and such or der cannot be sustained in the eye of Law. There is no dispute with regard to the allegation o f taking a decision involving the order dated 10.9.1998 without giving opportunity to the part ies concerned.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the impugned orders have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and the matters has been decided behind back of the petitioner, same are not sustainable. There is no dispute to this allegati on by the learned State Counsel. From perusal of the impugned order, this Court also finds the allegation appears to be true.

Under the circumstance, this Court finds the orders impugned are not sustainable and f or which, this Court while setting aside the impugned orders dated 25.1.2005, 24.12.2004 and 1 0.09.1998, remits the matter back to the Revenue Officer to rehear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the matter is decided in presence of both the parties, both the parties are dire cted to appear before the authority on 3rd of October, 2016 with a certified copy of this orde r.

Since there has been some developments following the illegal orders brought out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in the event, any further acti on following the illegal orders, the same shall be abided by the fresh order to be passed by t he Revenue Officer following the direction given hereinabove.

R.Kamalakar Rao v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kamalakar Rao v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purna Ch.Sankhua Vs State of Orissa

Debashis Das Vs State of Odisha

Surath Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Chandra M.Satpathy Vs Manas Ranjan Samal,Tahasildar,Bbsr

Gangadhar Samal Vs Tahasildar,Bijharpur

Biswanath Jena Vs State of Odisha