The petition challenging initiation of suo motu proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956 was disposed of as covered by a prior direction. Status quo was maintained pending petitioner's return on land purchase.
Status quo maintained regarding disputed land; petitioner directed to file return on purchased land before concerned authority within four weeks.
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.2868 OF 2010
6.10.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed against initiation of suo motu proceeding, RMC No
.506/09 under Section 3(A) of the Orissa Regulation-2 of 1956.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after perusal of the decision
presented before this Court in support of the petitioner passed in disposal of W.P.(C) No.1512
5/2009, this Court finds, the case of the petitioner is covered by the direction contained in
W.P.(C) No.15125/2009, consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of with an observation
that in case the petitioner files return in respect of the purchased land and proceeds along
with the petition for condonation of delay before the concerned authority within a period of f
our weeks from today, the same shall be considered following the principle decided in W.P.(C)
No.15125/2009, but however giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and until considerat
ion of RMC No.506/09, status quo in respect of the disputed land shall be maintained by both t
he parties.
Issue urgent certified copy.
Biswanath Rath, J.
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 3(A) of the Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 is maintainable when earlier direction covers the petitioner's case.
Whether the disputed land should be maintained under status quo pending consideration of the regulatory matter.
Whether the petitioner must file returns regarding purchased land before the concerned authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.15125/2009Followed¶4
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Concerned Authority
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Biswanath Rath
Parties & counsel