Remanded

Priyanka Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Feb 2021WP(C)/2507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(C) No.2507 of 2021, the High Court set aside orders passing in rent cases when the final R.O.R. for Samapur Mouza was not published. The Court directed remittal with a mandatory opportunity of hearing to the Settlement Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of 18.04.2013 and 15.07.2013 are set aside and the matter remitted to the Assistant Settlement Officer to decide afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Priyanka Samal Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.2507 of 2021

¶2

15.02.2021

¶3

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Videoconferencing.

¶4

Heard Miss Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposite parties 1 to 7.

¶5

Although this matter is listed for fresh admission, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶6

The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure-7) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Rent Objection Case No.788/ 890 of 2012 as well as order dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure-8) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Suo Motu Rent Case No.6431/5660 of 2013.

¶7

On instruction, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 7 submits that final R.O.R. in respect of Sampur Mouza has not been published. He, however, could not ascertain as to whether the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during settlement operation, the petitioner had produced all relevant records and documents before the Settlement Authority and

¶9

¶10

accordingly draft R.O.R. was published in her name. However, the impugned orders were passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner whereby direction was issued to record the land in Government Khata.

¶11

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 as Settlement Officer in the office of Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack.

¶12

Taking into the averments made and in view of the fact that final publication in respect of Samapur Mouza has not been published under Section 12-B of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958, the impugned orders dated 18.04.2013 and 15.07.2013 under Annexures-7 and 8 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the opposite party no.6-Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar now functioning as Settlement Officer in the office of Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶13

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶14

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶15

Priyanka Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Samal 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

Raibu Mohanta Vs East Coast Railway

Ranjan Kumar Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Prajapita Brahmakumari Vedavati Vs Helena Patel

Dinabandhu Patri Vs the Member Board of Revenue

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Jena

Binodini Devi Vs State of Odisha