Disposed

Haripriya Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/11699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the Tahasildar's inaction in accepting rent from a new landowner, the Single Judge was not inclined to entertain the petition directly. The court observed that the Tahasildar must consider a fresh application by the petitioner to accept rent in her name and pass a reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application for rent acceptance; Tahasildar to consider it and pass reasoned order within three months.

Haripriya Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11699 OF 2021

¶3

Harapriya Sahu …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mandal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Sarojananda Mishra, Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

02.09.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2 . The grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to inaction of the Tahasildar, Sadar, CuttackOpposite Party No.2 in accepting rent from the Petitioner in respect of Plot No.230 under Darasikim Khata No.25 of MouzaCuttack Sahara Unit No.8, Dakhina Tulasipur in the district of Cuttack.

¶16

Mr. Mandal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has purchased the property in question from the recorded tenant-Durgamani Ray and the R.O.R. (Annexure-1) has been corrected in her name. But, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack is not accepting rent in respect of the land in question. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that since the Petitioner’s right over the land in question is ‘Darasikim’ in nature, the rent can only be accepted in the name of the original Sikimdar, namely, Durgamani Ray. In fact the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack has

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

accepted the rent in respect of the land in question from the Petitioner on behalf of Durgamani Ray. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶21

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶22

It is, however, observed that in the event the Petitioner files an application to accept rent in her name, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same and pass a reasoned order thereon as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application along with certified copy of this order and communicate the same to the Petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

(K.R.Mohapatra)
Judge

¶25

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Haripriya Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripriya Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hajaru Mahakur Vs Pitambar Pradhan

Bijay Ch.Mohanty Vs Joint Commnr.

Khirod Kumar Ota Vs Asish Kumar Dibedi

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

Raiguru Nimain Vs State

Aparna Dhirsingh Vs State of Odisha