Remanded

Prafulla Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Sept 2021WP(C)/10709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Orissa directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to adjudicate the Rent Objection Case afresh. The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing and noted that the final Rent Register had not been published.

What did the court decide?

Remitted the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer to adjudicate the Objection Case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Prafulla Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 10709 OF 2020

¶3

Prafulla Nayak …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Bhagaban Behera, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.09.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing/setting aside of order dated 8^th July, 2013 (Annexure1) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in suo motu Rent Objection Case No.6269 of 2013.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had purchased the land from the rightful owner in favour of whom lease was granted and accordingly draft R.O.R. was published in her name. However, at the stage of determination of rent, the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner whereby direction was issued to record the land in Government Khata.

¶16

On instruction, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Parties submits that final R.O.R. in respect of Sampur Mouza has not yet been published. He, however, could not ascertain as to whether the Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing to put-froth her case before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, now functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack.

¶20

In view of the fact that final publication in respect of Samapur Mouza has not been published under Section 12(B) of the Act, the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar now functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.5 to adjudicate objection Case No.6269 of 2013 afresh in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the present Petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to appear before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar now functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.5 on 20^th September, 2021 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter for early adjudication of the Objection Case in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Prafulla Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Nayak v. 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

Renubala Das Vs Chief Administrator Lord Jagannath Mahapravu Bije Srikhetra, Puri

Raiguru Nimain Vs State

Haripriya Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dadhi Baman Thakur Vs Commnr.of Consolidn.

Jagannath Giri Vs Revenue Divisional Commnr. (Central Division), Cuttack

Basanta Kumar Ghadai Vs Tata Motors Fin. Ltd.