Allowed

Pabitra Routray v. Sub-Collector

Orissa HC2 Jul 2019WP(C)/17018/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court permitted condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal and stayed ongoing certificate proceedings.)q. The court held that condonation applications appealing against rejected appeals must not be decided mechanically when financial stakes are high. It allowed the delay application, directed admission of the appeal, and stayed further certificate proceedings unti

What did the court decide?

CB 14011, allowed 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

Pabitra Routray Vs Sub-Collector — Specific Performance | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO. 17018 OF 2006

¶2

10 2.7.2019 Heard Sri D.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶3

2. This writ petition involves the following prayer :-

¶4

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court

¶5

may be graciously pleased to issue to

¶6

(a) Writ of Mandamus/Certiorari quashing the order dtd. 27.11.2003 and 17.11.2004 under Valuation Case No.1384/02 and the said proceeding vide Annexure-1 and order dtd.21.1.2006 passed in F.A.O. No.82 of 2005 vide Annexure-2 and quash proceeding in Certificate Case No.705 of 2004 & Notice vide Annexure-3.

¶7

(b) Declaration, declaring the proceeding so initiated by O.P. No.1, in U.V.M.Case No.1384/2002 on the basis of Notification vide Annexure-4, is without authority of Law and incompetent.

¶8

¶9

(d) Allow this writ application with cost.”

¶10

3. Taking this Court to the pleading, Sri Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that U.V.M. Case No.1384/2002 having been decided, vide order dated 9.1.2004, mechanically, the petitioner preferred the statutory Appeal however after delay of more than one year. Vide Annexure-2, the Appeal at the instance of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation also. As a consequence of rejection of the Appeal, Certificate Proceeding, vide Certificate Case No.705 of 2004 has been initiated and there involves a Warrant of Arrest involving the petitioner. Assailing the order of the appellate authority, the original authority vis-à-vis initiation of Certificate Proceeding, Sri Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the ground involving delay in filing the Appeal bearing F.A.O. No.82 of 2005, delay should have been condoned and the

¶11

¶12

¶13

Appeal should have been heard on merit. In the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in the impugned order at Annexure-2 and also for direction to the Appellate Authority for disposal of the Appeal in accordance with law.

¶14

4. U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, though did not dispute filing of the Appeal involved there in the delay condonation application but for the ground involving rejection of the delay condonation application submits that there is no infirmity involving the appellate order. Sri Sahoo, learned counsel further submitted that as a consequence of rejection of the appellate order at the instance of the petitioner, the Authority was constrained to initiate a Certificate Proceeding, and therefore, there is also no infirmity in initiation of the Certificate Proceeding, vide Certificate Case No.705 of 2004. It is in the above premises, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State urged this Court for not interfering with the impugned orders and rejecting the writ petition.

¶15

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the U.V.M.Case No.1384/2002 under the Stamps Act has been decided against the petitioner. For the statutory provision the petitioner had the right of Appeal involving the order at Annexure-1. It apears, since there is delay of more than one year in filing the Appeal, the petitioner filed the Appeal along with delay condonation application. Looking to the delay condonation application, this Court finds, the petitioner has explained the delay in filing the Appeal. Further for the involvement of financial implications, this Court observes, the delay

¶16

¶17

condonation application should not have been decided mechanically rather considered liberally.

¶18

6. In view of the statutory remedy of appeal being lost by the rejection of the application for delay condonation and thereby the petitioner is seriously prejudiced in the matter of demand of additional stamp, this Court interferes with the impugned order at Annexure-3 and thereby allowing the application for condonation of delay and directs the appellate authority for taking up the F.A.O. No.82/2005 for admission. For revival of the Appeal, further proceeding involving Certificate Case No.705 of 2004 remains stayed till the final outcome of the Appeal.

¶19

7. With the above observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Issue urgent certified copy.

¶21

…………………………

¶22

Biswanath Rath, J.

¶23

Pabitra Routray v. Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabitra Routray v. Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Regnl.Engg.College Vs M.N.R.Kurup

Saraswati Behera Vs State and Ors.

Prafulla Panda Vs State of Orissa

Bhanumati Behura Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Manik Vs State of Odisha

Kameswar Sharma Vs Collector,Jharsuguda