Dismissed

Sumitra Menta v. Sub-Collector,Puri

Orissa HC12 Jul 2018WP(C)/5689/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Sub-Collector's remand order in a mutation appeal case. Although not inclined to interfere with the order, the Court observed that the Sub-Collector made premature observations on the merits which could prejudice the original authority. The writ is disposed of directing the Tahasildar to proceed without being influenced by such remarks.

What did the court decide?

The Tahasildar, Puri shall proceed with the exercise directed by the Sub-Collector's order without being influenced by observations made therein; said observations treated only as justification for re

Sumitra Menta Vs Sub-Collector,Puri — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 5689 of 2018

¶2

12.07.2018 This writ application has been filed questioning an

¶3

order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in Mutation Appeal Case No. 47 of 2015 in setting aside the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the Tahasildar, Pipili in Mutation Case No. 3719 of 2011.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent who was the appellant before the SubCollector, was not the party to the mutation proceeding and therefore, the Sub-Collector at her instance ought not to have entertained the appeal and set aside the order of mutation. He further contends that in course of the discussion certain observations have been made by the Sub-Collector which have positive influence upon the original authority who has been directed to decide the matter afresh. In this connection particularly, he has drawn the attention of the court to the following sentence:-

¶5

“ it is a matter of astonishment that the said Manorama Mishra expired on 10.12.89, it is not understood how could she be a vendor in RSD No. 1899/dt. 01.09.93”.

¶6

In view of above, he contends that though the final order is one of remand of the matter to the Tahasildar, yet the fate of the proceeding has almost been sealed in view of such observations.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 who was the appellant before the Sub-Collector, submits all in favour of the impugned order. He submits that the order of mutation having been passed behind the back of this opposite party and he having been affected by the said order of mutation, has all the right to file an appeal. He of course fairly submits that in view of remand of the case to the original authority, it is for the original authority to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the direction contained in the order of remand without being influenced in any way by any such observation made therein.

¶8

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the SubCollector has made the detail discussion to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Further referring to the notes of argument submitted by the parties, and upon their consideration, the ultimate direction has been given to the Tahasildar to call for the

¶9

sale deeds as have been reflected in the order and after due examination of those, to pass appropriate order by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶10

The opposite party no.3 being the person affected by the order of mutation, no fault is seen with the entertainment of the appeal at his behest.

¶11

Now going through the impugned order, although this Court does not find itself to be in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by such order the fate of the mutation proceeding has been sealed, yet the possibility to the extent is not all together ruled out that the original authority may take a cue from such observation made in the order which may lead to accordingly pass the final order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Sub-Collector should have avoided to make any such observation and left it open for the original authority to examine the sale deeds and upon their due consideration to take a view in accordance with law so as to dispose of the proceeding.

¶12

For the aforesaid, while being not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the writ application is disposed of

¶13

with the observation that the Tahasildar, Puri shall proceed with the exercise as has been directed by order of the SubCollector in Mutation Appeal Case No. 47 of 2015 without being influenced by any such observations made therein and said observation be treated only to justify the remand of the matter to the original authority but as not any expression on the merit of the rival claim.

¶14

The writ application is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

…………………….. D. Dash, J.

Sumitra Menta v. Sub-Collector,Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Menta v. Sub-Collector,Puri

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

Purnomoni Pujari Vs Padma Badanayak

Rajib Swain@Rajesh Swain Vs State of Orissa

Dhrutanasan Kar Vs State of Orissa

Mirabai Pattnaik Vs Collector,Nayagarh

Khageswr Senapati Vs Sashikanta Ojha

S.Tuna Reddy Vs State of Orissa