The High Court dismissed a writ petition with no substantive order. The petition had previously been dismissed against one respondent for non-substitution. The Court held that as the petition was already decided regarding the specific respondent, nothing remained to be adjudicated. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.19587 of 2014
conferencing mode.
None appears for the petitioners at the time of
call.
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Bibhudananda Muduli, leaned counsel for the opposite party no.3 are present.
Vide order dated 02.12.2020, this writ petition was dismissed as against petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.3 for their non-substitution. It also appears from the order dated 02.12.2020, none represented the petitioner on the said date in spite of repeated calls.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack in R.C. No.165 of 2014 under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) allowing the revision filed by the opposite party no.3.
In view of the fact that the writ petition has already been dismissed against opposite party no.3, nothing survives to be adjudicated in this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
……..……………………
jm
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner no.1
Opposite party no.1
Opposite party no.2
Opposite party no.3
jm
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
