Dismissed

Khalida Bibi v. Amita Dey

Orissa HC23 Nov 2020WP(C)/4098/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition assailing a mutation appeal order. It held the petition not maintainable directly but granted liberty to seek recall of the order or file a revision under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to file a petition for recall of the order dated 03.10.2019 or to file a revision under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

Khalida Bibi Vs Amita Dey — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO. 4098 OF 2020

¶2

07 23.11.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

None appears for the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State is present.

¶4

On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that from 06.02.2020 the matter is being adjourned on several occasions either on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner or due to his non-appearance. It further appears that on the last two occasions, i.e. on 07.09.2020 and 06.11.2020, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

¶5

The petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the SubCollector, Balasore in Mutation Appeal No. 104 of 2017, whereby he allowed the mutation appeal and set aside the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Balasore in M.C. No. 1537 of 2017.

¶6

On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground that the opp. party no. 2, namely, Khateja Bewa, who is in no way related to the land in question, has filed the aforesaid mutation appeal, which was disposed of by the SubCollector, Balasore vide order dated 03.10.2019 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In

¶7

¶8

that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶9

Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 to assail the impugned order under Annexure-3, if he feels aggrieved. Thus, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

¶10

Taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petition as well as the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner either to file a petition for recall of the order dated 03.10.2019 under Annexure-3 in view of the ratio decided in the case of Alekh Chandra Rath –v- Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement, Orissa , reported in 1989 (2) OLR 135 or to file a revision under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

¶11

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.

¶12

.................................

¶13

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶14

bks

¶15

Khalida Bibi v. Amita Dey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalida Bibi v. Amita Dey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purna Chandra Mallick Vs Mukunda Mallick

Basant Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Laxmipriya Chand Vs State of Odisha

Rajkishor Singh Vs State of Odisha

Ayub Alli Khan Vs Amita Dey