Allowed

Sanjukta Nayak v. Consolidation Officer,Chhatia

Orissa HC20 Sept 2016WP(C)/22696/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha. The court held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass consequential orders after becoming functus officio post a final order, as the statute provides no power for such review, setting aside the impugned orders without barring the challenge to the primary order.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 23.11.2015 and 28.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement under Misc. Case No.03 of 2015 and Consolidation Revision No.138 of 2012 are set aside.

20.9.2016Heard Mr.S.J.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.R.Dehury, learned couns el for the private Opp. party No.4 and Mr.K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate f or the State-Opp. party Nos.1 to 3.

This Writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 23.11.2015 and 28.11.20 15 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.0 3 of 2015 and Consolidation Revision No.138 of 2012 respectively.

In assailing the order impugned herein vide Annexures-4 and 5, Mr.Pradhan,learned coun sel for the petitioner contended that the Misc. case at the instance of petitioner was perse not maintainable as the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha becomes functious o fficio after passing the final order under Annexure-3 and the order under Annexure-5 being a consequential order depending on the out come of Annexure-4, also not sustainable in the eye o f law.

Mr.Dehury, learned counsel for the Opp. party No.4 opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority passing a wrong order has all the pow er to review his own order and by citing decisions in the case between Sk.Jabar @ Sk.Abdul Jab ar vrs-- State of Orissa and Others, reported in 2016(I) I LR -CUT- 953 and in the case be tween Indian Bank -vrs- M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Cour t-2592, the learned counsel submitted that his stand gets support of the aforesaid two decisio ns.

Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand supporting the sub mission of the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the impugned orders unde r Annexures-4 and 5 are unsustainable for being passed without having any authority. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that there is no pr ovision for recalling the order in the OCH & PFL Act, 1972. This Court finds that since the Co mmissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack became functious officio after passin g the final order as at Annexure-3, he had no scope to entertain any application thereafter. C onsidering the citations cited at Bar at the instance of Mr.Dehury, learned counsel for Opp. p arty No.4, this Court finds both the citations stand on different footing considering the prov isions contained in Orissa Survey and Settlement Act,1958 or the Code of Civil Procedure which provisions have no application in the present circumstance. For difference in the fact situa tion, the decision cited by Mr.Dehury, learned counsel for the Opp. party No.4 has no applicat ion to the present case.

Under the circumstances and in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, this Court se ts aside the orders under Annexures-4 and 5 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settl ement, Odisha being without jurisdiction. This order will however not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order vide Annexure-3 before any appropriate forum which shall be decided on its own merit.

Sanjukta Nayak v. Consolidation Officer,Chhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjukta Nayak v. Consolidation Officer,Chhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangita Samal Vs State of Orissa

Dhaneswar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Loknath Pujari Vs State of Orissa

Purna Ch.Sankhua Vs State of Orissa

Debashis Das Vs State of Odisha

Surath Sethi Vs State of Odisha