Dismissed

Nrushinghanath Thaku v. State

Orissa HC6 Dec 2019WP(C)/10298/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a Revenue Circular cannot contravene statute and directed petitioners to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 regarding the correction of RoRs in Bebandobasta Case No.226 of 1996.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 within four weeks. Status quo maintained.

Nrushinghanath Thaku Vs State — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C). No.10298 of 2004

¶2

06.12.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

Essentially, the petitioners assail the order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure-8), passed by the Revenue Officer, Kanika, in Bebandobasta Case No.226 of 1996, pursuant to which RoRs has been corrected.

¶5

It appears that the impugned order in Bebandobasta Case No.226 of 1996 has been passed pursuant to the Circular issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Revenue No.57677/R. dated 06.12.2000 under Annexure-7.

¶6

We make it clear that no circular either in contravention or contrary to the statute can be issued. However, the Member Board of Revenue is the competent to look into the matter and pass necessary orders.

¶7

In that view of the matter, the petitioners are at liberty to file revision assailing the correctness of the entry in the RoRs under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 within four weeks from today. If the petitioners approach the competent authority by filing a revision along with an application for condonation of delay, the authority shall take into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is made clear that the authority, while considering the application for

¶8

¶9

condonation of delay in filing the revision, shall take into consideration the period lapsed by the petitioners in this Court by filing this writ petition i.e. from 20.09.2004 till date. Status quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties for a period of four weeks from today.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Misc. Cases/I.As., if any connected to this writ petition is/are also disposed of accordingly.

¶11

The original documents filed by the petitioners may be returned after substituting attested photo copies thereof.

¶12

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶13

.……..........………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶14

……………….…….. ( K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶15

Nrushinghanath Thaku v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nrushinghanath Thaku v. State

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

Bhabani Pr.Rath Vs O.a.T.,Cuttack Bench

Hota'S Studio Vs Union of India.

Ranjeet Kumar Dash Vs Govt.of Orissa

Indramani Vs O.S.F.C.

Bina Mallick Vs Tahasildar,Bbsr

Misrilall Mines Vs State