Remanded

Abhiram Mahanty v. the State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Dec 2020WP(C)/27829/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a revisional order allowing the State to revise the settlement record. Court remanded matter for fresh adjudication after finding the revisional authority proceeded without properly considering the petitioner's written statement and verified records.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Annexure-6 set aside; matter remitted to Commissioner for fresh adjudication granting hearing opportunity; parties directed to appear on 18.01.2021.

Abhiram Mahanty Vs the State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.27829 of 2020

¶2

18.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Srikanta Mahunta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Petition No.2070 of 2015, whereby he allowed the revision filed by the State Government under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶5

Mr. Mahunta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land pertaining to Hal Plot No.713 under Khata No. 176 to an extent of Ac.0.24 decimals corresponding to Plot No.335 under Sabik Khata No.61 in Mouza-Satkania in the district of Jajpur was recorded in the name of Labanya Kumari Mohanty under Annexure1. During settlement operation, the R.O.R. was prepared in her name in the year, 1996. Said Labanya Kumari Mohanty for her legal necessity sold an area of Ac.0.06 decimals in favour of the petitioner vide Registered Sade Deed dated 23.06.1997. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No.532 of 1998 and the land purchased

¶6

was recorded in his name in respect of Khata No.213/2, Plot No.713/849 to an extent of Ac.0.06 decimals (for short ‘the case land’) under Annexue-2. After a lapse of about 23 years of publication of the R.O.R., the Collector

¶7

¶8

& District Magistrate, Jajpur filed Revision Petition No.2070 of 2015 under Section 15(b) of the Act.

¶9

It is submitted by Mr. Mahunta, learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner was served with a notice and had filed his written statement (Annexure-5) to the revision petition but the revisional authority without considering the same, proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order. The finding of the Commissioner at paragraph-4.0 of the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner did not file any document in support of his case is not correct. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication considering his written statement and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State vehemently objected to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his submission that the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner in course of hearing did not produce any document to substantiate his case. Due to non-cooperation of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that the impugned order is otherwise legal and justified. The petitioner should not be rewarded for his lapses in participating in the hearing of revision petition by remitting the matter back to the Commissioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶11

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner has appeared through his learned counsel and contested the revision case. It further appears that the petitioner had filed written statement under Annexure-5 to the revision under Section 15(b) of the Act. But, there is no averment made in the writ petition as to when the petitioner had filed a written statement before the revisional authority. From the impugned order, it appears that the Commissioner proceeded to decide the matter with a finding that Sabik Plot No.335 under Sabik Khata No.61 of VillageSatakania was recorded as ‘Nati Jungle’. The Commissioner only basing upon the averments made in the revision petition under Section 15(b) of the Act filed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur has passed the impugned order without verifying the records. Hence, the revision petition requires a de novo adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 for fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to the revision petition.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties.

¶15

¶16

The petitioner as well as the Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur-opposite party no.3 are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 on 18.01.2021 along with an authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of the Orissa High Court to receive further instruction in the matter.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶20

Abhiram Mahanty v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhiram Mahanty v. the State of Odisha

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

Rohit Ganga Deb Vs Collector,Deogarh

Lakshmidhar Mishra Vs Sushanta Kumar Panigrahi

Smt. Anupama Kar @ Panda Vs Sabitri Panda @ Acharya

Prativa Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Gayadhar Biswal Vs the State of Odisha

Laxmi Behera Vs Collector,Angul