Dismissed

Devraj Patra v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC11 Jul 2018WP(C)/8246/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this constitutional petition, the Court quashed a decision by the Collector that recorded the petitioner's participation in proceedings without notice. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the remedy lies with the recording court to correct its own record, as the Writ Court cannot directly recorrect such orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the recording court to correct its order if the petitioner was indeed not heard, allowing the petitioner to interpose in the pending proceeding.

Devraj Patra Vs State of Orissa — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C).No.8246 of 2018

¶2

5 11.07.2018 Heard Sri Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

Hearing the counsel for the petitioner bringing to the further development involving the case, particularly, taking this Court to the order dated 2.6.2018 passed by the Collector, Koraput in C.S.No.05 of 2018 submitted that there is in fact no notice of such proceeding to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of petitioner appearing in such proceeding.

¶4

Reading the order at Annexure-B/2, the order dated 2.6.2018, this Court finds there is a clear recording of appearance of the present petitioner, the opposite party therein. This Court also finds there also remains a direction to the present petitioner to deposit T.D.R. for Rs.2,00,000/in any nationalized bank and to be drawn at Koraput duly pledged to Collector, Koraput as interim security for release of the ceased vehicle, which order has been passed in the participation of the petitioner.

¶5

It is at this stage, considering the submission of Sri Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never heard and there was no scope for his appearance in absence of a notice. But keeping in view the observation in the order at Annexure-B/2 indicating the participation of the petitioner, further taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak , AIR 1982 S.C.1249, this Court observes in such contingency, remedy lies only with the court making such recording to correct its own order but subject to however to the satisfaction of the very same court. Further, since the proceeding is still pending, nothing prevents the petitioner to appear in the proceeding and file appropriate application to remedy out the

¶6

¶7

difficulties, as writ court has no scope for entering into such recordings.

¶8

The writ petition stands disposed of with the observation and direction made hereinabove.

¶9

Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.

¶10

……………………… Biswanath Rath,J.

¶11

sks

Devraj Patra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devraj Patra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhumita Prusty Vs State of Orissa

Ritanjali Giri Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Govt.of Orissa

Lingaraj Singh Vs Dillip Singh

Chintamani Das Vs Raghumani Das

Madhuri Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Kamalakanta Parida Vs State and Ors.