Dismissed

Debaraj Meher v. Collector,Kalahandi

Orissa HC2 Apr 2019WP(C)/6895/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Surface Right permission was dismissed. The court held that no case was made out as no stay or interim order was passed by this court after May 17, 2006, and thirteen years had elapsed since the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit; no case is made out to disturb the order.

Debaraj Meher Vs Collector,Kalahandi — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.6895 OF 2006

¶2

02.04.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.3.2006 under Annexure-8 passed by the Collector, Kalahandi-opposite party No.1 cancelling his Surface Right permission came to be cancelled on 24.3.2006.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice came to be issued on 6.3.2006 at Annexure-6 pursuant to which reply was filed on 13.3.2006. However, the Collector passed an order cancelling the Surface Right permission granted in favour of the petitioner without taking into consideration the Certificate produced at Annexure-9 where production was started on 15.9.2005 and the reply filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken as to the further reply dated 8.5.2006 where at paragraph-6 he has stated as under:

¶6

“6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the undersigned has already set up the Lapidary unit and it has stated production from 15.9.2005 i.e. within five years from 4.10.2000 i.e. the date of execution of the Mining Lease Deed in respect of Bondoguda Iolite Mines over an area of 1.700 Hects. in village Bondoguda in the district of Kalahandi.”

¶7

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

The Permanent Registration Certificate at Annexure-9 is in the name of M/s. Sedev Vikash Gems, may be a Proprietory Firm of the petitioner but it cannot be used for lease granted in favour of the petitioner, granting the Surface Right permission in respect of the area of village Bondoguda. The authority has also taken into consideration the reply dated 13.3.2006 and found that there is a specific breach of the conditions.

¶9

-2-

¶10

In that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate to disturb the order after almost thirteen years. Since after 17.5.2006, there is no stay and no further interim order is passed by this Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no case is made out.

¶11

Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶12

( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶13

��.��.. ( K.R.Mohapatra ) Judge

¶14

AKK

Debaraj Meher v. Collector,Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debaraj Meher v. Collector,Kalahandi

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

Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs Mrs.Susmita Pani

Shatabdinagar Welfar Vs Dr.Arun Ku.Panda

Ch.Santosh Vs State

Kansa Behera Vs State

Raj Kumar Agrawala Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Pradeep Kumar Panda Vs Addl.Commissioner of Sales Tax