Partly allowed

Prafulla Ku.Debta v. Collector,Deogarh

Orissa HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/17753/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a two-line order dismissing a mutation appeal without assigning reasons is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh, was set aside, and the matter remanded for redetermination after affording opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.7.2016 by Sub-Collector, Deogarh in Mutation Appeal No.1/2014 set aside and remitted to the appellate authority for redetermination with direction to pass fresh order after hea

Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahes Das, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 to 6 and Mr. Sougat Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel. In assailing the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh i n Mutation Appeal No.1/2014 under Annexure-5 (series) to this petition, learned counsel for th e petitioner contended that the appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Collector in disposing the a ppeal finally, has not discussed anything on the merit of the appeal, further there is no find ing on reversal of the findings of the Tahasildar and the appeal has been simply rejected with two lines order that the Tahasildar has rightly rejected the Misc. Petition on the ground of limitation. In referring to the appeal memorandum, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that he had raised number of grounds therein and since the appeal at the instance of the petitioner has been decided finally, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to go into the merit of the case and decide the matter giving reasons.

Learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos.4 to 6 on the other hand, in opposi ng the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the impugned order does not disclose any reason but as the Tahasildar has rejected the Misc. P etition on the ground of limitation for being filed after thirty years, there was no scope for interfering in the matter otherwise and thus, contended that there is no illegality in the ap pellate order.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on his appearance submitted to the extent that sin ce the appeal of the petitioner has been decided finally, the appellate authority should have assigned reasons therein.

Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and from perusal of the appeal memor andum, this Court finds the petitioner has given number of grounds in satisfaction of his case in appeal. Considering the above submission and from perusal of the impugned order, this Cour t finds there is absolutely no reason assigned by the appellate authority in dismissing the ap peal and since the appeal order is two lined order, cannot be sustainable.

In view of the above, this Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 13.7.201 6 passed by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh in Mutation Appeal No.1/2014 under Annexure-5 to this p etition, remits the matter back to the appellate authority for redetermination of the appeal. It is directed that the appeal be disposed of by passing a fresh order and after affording opp ortunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

Prafulla Ku.Debta v. Collector,Deogarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Ku.Debta v. Collector,Deogarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kelu Charan Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Mani Behera Vs State of Odisha

Babaji Sahu Vs Narendra Tripathy

Bhabagrahi Patra Vs State of Odisha

Parsuram Das Vs Tahasildar Cum Revenue Officer,Rajkanika,Kendrapara

Saswati Mishra Vs State of Orissa