The petitioner challenged an ROR published under Section 22 of the OCH & PFL Act. The court found the petition misconceived as the impugned authority and recorded tenants were not parties. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Disposal of the writ petition praying to keep the order in abeyance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 21553 of 2019
Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
None appears for the petitioner at the time of call.
On last occasion, i.e., on 27.11.2020 also none had appeared to pursue the matter.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to keep the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore in Consolidation Revision Case No.89 of 2016 in abeyance.
On a perusal of record, it appears that the Additional Commissioner Settlement Consolidation, Balasore, whose order dated 07.01.2019 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.89 of 2016 is impugned herein, has not been made party to this writ petition. The recorded tenants are also not made parties to the writ petition. However, it appears that the petitioner styling him to be a Hindu public has assailed the correctness of ROR published in the name of the deity. The ROR in question was published by the consolidation authorities under Section 22 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, ‘OCH & PFL Act’) in the year 1987.
2
Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
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.
.................................
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
ss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that the Additional Commissioner and recorded tenants were not made parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Hindu priest/public)
Hindu deities
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
