Dismissed

Majeti Venkata Padma v. the Addl Dm,Bbsr

Orissa HC24 Nov 2020WP(C)/1445/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by an observation, holding that directing the Additional District Magistrate to act prematurely on the pending mutation case would serve no purpose, leaving the petitioner to work out other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the petitioner must work out her remedy under law.

Majeti Venkata Padma Vs the Addl Dm,Bbsr — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.1445 of 2020

¶2

24.11.2020

¶3

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.

¶5

The petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the opposite parties to accord necessary permission, pass order or give consent to the petitioner for alienation of the property as at Annexure-1. In that regard she has made a representation to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.1 on 03.09.2019.

¶6

Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.1 has not responded to the same, although more than one year has already been elapsed in the meantime.

¶7

The matter was listed on 09.11.2020 on which date, this Court passed the following order:

¶8

“Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through video conferencing.

¶9

Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for some more time to take instruction whether the Record of Right in respect of the case land is prepared in the name of the petitioner and whether any permission is required of sale of the land.

¶10

Put up this matter on 24.11.2020. Instruction, if any be obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also by Mr. Mishra,

¶11

¶12

learned Additional Government Advocate in the meantime.

¶13

Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner on instruction submits that the petitioner is not in a position to deal with her property as the Mutation Case is pending since 2018.

¶14

In view of the above, it is observed that no purpose will be served by directing the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.1 to dispose of the representation early. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that it is open to the petitioner to work out the remedy available to her under law.

¶15

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶16

..…………………………. K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶17

bct

Majeti Venkata Padma v. the Addl Dm,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majeti Venkata Padma v. the Addl Dm,Bbsr

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

Laxmipriya Chand Vs State of Odisha

Rajkishor Singh Vs State of Odisha

Khalida Bibi Vs Amita Dey

Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Laxmi Prasad Parua Vs Tahasildar, Bamara