Disposed

Pramod Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC4 Dec 2017WP(C)/23477/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition assailing an order allowing other parties to produce legal heir certificates without notice to the petitioner, the High Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to appeal against the Tahasildar's order before the Sub-Collector within fifteen days, specifying a four-month disposal timeline.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara within fifteen days. Notice to be issued for condonation of delay application.

In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 10.02.2017 passe d by the learned Tahasildar, Garadpur, Kendrapara, opposite party no.3, allowing the applicati on filed by opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 7 without issuing notice to the present petitioner. It is borne out from the record that opposite party nos.5, 6 and 7 are producing the legal he ir certificate and the petitioner is also producing legal heir certificate. Both the petitio ner on one hand and opposite party nos.5, 6 and 7 on the other hand are claiming to be the leg al heirs of the recorded tenant. A question of fact is involved. So, it is appropriate to gran t liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of opposite party no.3 befor e the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file properly constituted appeal before the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara within a period of f ifteen days. On such event, the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara shall do well to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal. It may be noted h ere that an order passed by the Tahasildar against any person is appealable by any other perso n, if aggrieved by the order, even if he is not a party to the mutation case. As far as limit ation is concerned, the limitation for such appeal will start from the date of the knowledge o f the petitioner about impugned order passed by the Tahasildar. If the limitation prescribed for preferring appeal has expired, the petitioner may file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act , which shall be considered and disposed of after issuing notice to the respondents.

It is observed that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the learned Su b-Collector, Kendrapara shall keep in mind the principles enunciated by the Honble Supreme Cou rt in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others ; AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353.

If any application for interim order is filed, the same may also be considered and disposed of by the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara. The original certified copy of impugned order be returned on being substituted by authenticated xerox copy of it.

Pramod Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa

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

Rashmi Pradhan Vs Union of India

Sumitra Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Prabhar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Tapas Kumar Palei Vs State of Orissa

Kefayat Khan Vs Commissioner Land Reforms and Consolidation

Rahasbihari Barik Vs State of Orissa