The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to implement a 1999 Consolidation Officer order. It held that the order became infructuous following the publication of the final Record of Rights (ROR) and map, citing Section 22(2) of the Act.
Direction to implement the order dated 15.09.1999 was denied.
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. 6668 of 2021
for correction of the map in respect of plots in question. But the said order was not carried out
2
and taking advantage of the same, opposite party Nos.4 and 5 created disturbance over the said property for which the present writ petition has been filed.
3
8.1 As restrictions due to resurgence of COVID19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
……................................
K.R. Mohapatra,J.
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order passed by the Consolidation Officer prior to the publication of the final Record of Rights (ROR) can be implemented after the publication of the ROR.
Whether the writ petition seeking implementation of an earlier order needs consideration when a subsequent final ROR has been published.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
State-opposite party Nos. 1 to 3
Opposite party Nos. 4 and 5
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
