Disposed

Lala Hari Prasad Chand v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Apr 2016WP(C)/4432/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court observed that an order under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation Act is not final if the area has been de-notified and the notification under Section 41 remains unpublished. The petitioner is free to raise objections if the area is notified afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is not treated as final; the petitioner may object if the area is notified afresh.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.8.1 981 passed by the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Ganeswarpur in Objection Case No.2804 of 1981 u nder Section 9 (3) of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party no.5 has filed Object ion Case No.2804 of 1981 before the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Ganeswarpur to record the lan d appertaining to Plot No.1473 measuring an area of Ac.0.80 decimals in her favour on concilia tion. However, the said authority has not heard the petitioner rather heard one Lala Govinda C handra Ram, who was neither authorized by the petitioner nor related to the petitioner. Hence the question of conciliation in the said Objection Case does not arise. In the meantime, Conso lidation Operation in the area in question has been stopped and the area has been de-notified under Section 5 of the Act. When the aforesaid order came to the knowledge of the petitioner t here was no scope to the petitioner to challenge the same before the competent authority. The Consolidation Operation in the area has not been completed and the notification under Section 41 of the Act has also not been published. Hence the Writ Petition.

5. In view of the above, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition with an observation th at the impugned order passed by the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Ganeswarpur in Objection Case No.2804 of 1981 shall not be treated as final and it is open to the petitioner to raise his o bjection in case the area in question will be notified afresh.

Lala Hari Prasad Chand v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lala Hari Prasad Chand v. State of Odisha

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

Kailash Ch Chaini Vs Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement,Cuttack

Manas Ranjan Sahoo Vs Tahasildar,Bbsr

Satchidananda Satapathy Vs State of Odisha

Rama Krushna Jagdala Vs State of Orissa

Khageswar Sahoo Vs Sub Collector,Kendrapara

Jayanti Gouda Vs Sub-Collector,Gunupur