Dismissed

Kedarnath Padhy v. Anita Kumari Sahu

Orissa HC3 Feb 2021CONTC/14/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding filed for alleged non-compliance of an order directing issuance of Record of Rights, the court held that the pendency of a mutation appeal filed by the respondent rendered the petitioner unable to enforce the order during that period, thus finding no contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding No. 14 of 2020 dropped as no contempt committed due to pendency of mutation appeal.

Kedarnath Padhy Vs Anita Kumari Sahu — Orissa HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CONTC No. 14 of 2020

¶2

03.02.2021 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

¶4

This petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for short, the Act’) has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated 30.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.17753 of 2019, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶5

“Considering the innocuous prayer, this Court disposes of the writ petition with an observation that if the petitioner files an application for issuance of R.O.R. before the Additional Tahasildar, Kanisi, Ganjam the later shall do well to issue R.O.R. in favour of the petitioner, if there is no impediment.”

¶6

Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the order was passed on 30.09.2019, (which was subsequently corrected by virtue of order dated 05.11.2019 passed in I.A. No. 14494 of 2019) and the petitioner filed an application for issuance of the R.O.R. in terms of order dated 10.02.2019 passed in Mutation Case No.8780 of 2018, the Tahasildar, Konisi did not comply with the said order. As such, the petitioner filed the application under the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the notice to show cause, reply has been filed by the opposite party stating that assailing the order passed in

¶7

¶8

Mutation Case No. 8780 of 2018, Mutation Appeal No. 17 of 2020 has been filed by the Tahasildar, Konisi on 14.02.2020 and notice of the same has already been issued to the petitioner. As such, the opposite party is not in a position to issue the R.O.R. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the said show cause reply stating thereon that after getting notice from this Court only, the Tahasildar, Konisi woke up from the slumber and filed the appeal in Mutation Appeal No.17 of 2020 assailing the order passed in Mutation Case No. 8780 of 2018. In order to circumvent the order of this Court and to get rid of the rigours of the Contempt proceeding, the appeal has been filed. As such, the show cause reply should be rejected and the opposite party be suitably punished for committing Contempt of Court.

¶9

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the appeal has already been filed assailing the order passed in Mutation Case No. 8780 of 2018, maintainability of the same can be well raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is further observed that during pendency of the mutation appeal, the Tahasildar, Konisi will not be in a position to issue the Record of Right in terms of the order passed in Mutation Case No. 8780 of 2018 In that view of the matter, I find that there is no

¶10

¶11

contempt of Court committed by the opposite party as alleged by the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, contempt proceeding in CONTC No.14 of 2020 is dropped.

¶13

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.

¶14

……..……………………

¶15

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

¶16

bct

Kedarnath Padhy v. Anita Kumari Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedarnath Padhy v. Anita Kumari Sahu

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

Jaminidevi Sribastav @ Jaminidevi Srivastab Vs State of Odisha

Balakana Kusuliya Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Mallick Vs the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Board of Revenue, Odisha

Niranjan Dash Vs Anita Kumari Sahu

Archana Sahu Vs Anita Kumari Sahu

Runa Dash Vs Anita Kumari Sahu