Disposed

Sudhanidhi Nayak v. Commnr., C and S, Odisha

Orissa HC10 Aug 2021WP(C)/16469/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition alleging violation of natural justice in a revenue case. Unable to resolve the factual dispute on lack of notice, the Court directed the petitioner to seek recall of the order from the Commissioner under a specific precedent, without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with an observation directing petitioner to apply for recall of the impugned order before the Commissioner.

Sudhanidhi Nayak Vs Commnr., C and S, Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 16469 of 2021

¶3

…. Sudhanidhi Nayak and another

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr.Sukanta Kumar Nayak, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Commissioner, Consolidation and …. Opp. Parties Settlement and others

¶8

Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

10.08.2021

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶16

Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail order dated 30^th May, 2012 (Annexure-2) passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, CuttackOpposite Party No.1 in RP Case No.488 of 2009 and consequential order passed by Tahasildar, Rajkanika-Opposite Party No.2 in Misc. Case No.14 of 2013.

¶17

Considering the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court dispenses with issuance of notice to private Opposite Party Nos.3 to 13.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr.Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the Petitioners were made parties to the RP Case No.488 of 2009, but they were not served with notice. However, the Commissioner remitted the matter vide his order dated 30^th May, 2021 directed as under:

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

“6.0 In the result, the revision petition is admitted and remanded to the Tahasildar, Rajkanika for disposal as per law, since no Sub-ordinate Settlement Authorities are functioning in the field at present. The learned Tahasildar shall issue notice to both the parties given them an opportunity of being heard, verify original Jamabandi & claim case, relevant documents and maps, conduct field enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the claim of the Petitioners.”

¶22

Accordingly, Tahasildar, Rajkanika initiated Misc. Case No.14 of 2013 and directed to record the land in the name of Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 8 therein.

¶23

Mr.Nayak, learned counsel further submits that CS No.47 of 2009 filed for partition in respect of the self-same property is pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara. Thus, the Tahasildar, Rajakanika could not have proceeded with the Misc. Case and recorded the land in question in the name of the Petitioner therein. Hence, he prays for the aforesaid relief.

¶24

Mr.Mishra, learned AGA submits that since the Petitioners allege that they have not been served with notice in RP Case No.488 of 2009 they should move the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack for redressal of their grievance. The Tahasildar, Rajkanika has only carried out the order of the Commissioner giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. As such, no fault can be found out with the order of the Tahasildar. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Petitioners allege non-compliance of principles of natural justice. It is their case that although they were made parties but no notice was served

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

on them. This being the factual dispute, this Court is not in a position to delve into the same.

¶29

Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in the event the Petitioners file an application before the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.1 in RP Case No.488 of 2009 to recall the said order dated 30^th May, 2012 (Annexure2) in terms of ratio in the case of Alekh Chandra Rath and another Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Odisha and others , reported in (1989) 2 OLR 135, the same shall be considered in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioners.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶31

s.s.satapathy

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Sudhanidhi Nayak v. Commnr., C and S, Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanidhi Nayak v. Commnr., C and S, Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Ch.Giri Vs Krupasindhu Das andORS

Sidharthini Tibrewal Vs Palanning Member, Cda and Ors.

Raghunath Nayak Vs Sub Collector, Balasore

Satyanarayan Samantray Vs State of Odisha

Soubhagya Kumar Champaty Vs Jay Saikrishna Buildcon (P) Ltd.

Pitambar Sahoo Vs Niranjan Sahoo