Allowed

Trailokyanath Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Aug 2021WP(C)/8972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entrusted in its own original jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition for condonation of delay and subsequently set aside the impugned unreasoned order of the Joint Commissioner, remitting the matter afresh without prejudice to the parties for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

Trailokyanath Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 8972 of 2021

¶3

Trailokyanath Sahu & Others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. R. N. Biswal, Advocate -versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha & Others Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. S. N. Mishra, Additional Government Advocate CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

06.08.2021

I.A. No.9737 of 2021

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition. 3. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and averments made in the I.A., delay in filing the writ petition is condoned.

¶16

The I.A. is disposed of.

¶17

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 8972 of 2021

¶19

1. The Petitioners in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement And Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. No.4681 of 2003.

¶20

Page 1 of 1

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, perusal of order under Annexure-6 itself discloses that the Joint Commissioner has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and materials on record. No reason has been assigned by the Joint Commissioner to reject the claim of the petitioner. In the penultimate paragraphs of the impugned order, the Commissioner has observed that the Consolidation Authority assumed power of the Civil Court after verifying the relevant documents/records of the schedule land in the name of the Government. Such a finding is based on no material and apparently an error of record. The land was recorded in the name of Government by the Settlement Authorities and not by the Consolidation Authority as observed. Hence, the impugned order on the face of it is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the Petitioners could not produce any material on record to establish their right in respect of the land in question. As such, the Commissioner has committed no error in dismissing the Revision Petition.

¶24

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is apparent that the impugned order under Annexure-6 is an unreasoned order. The only reason assigned is also not sustainable in view of the fact that the land has been recorded in the name of Government by the Settlement Authority and not by the Consolidation Authority as observed by the Commissioner.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

It is also submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents filed by the petitioners in support of his case land is not taken into consideration by the Commissioner.

¶28

In that view of the matter the impugned order being nonspeaking and cryptic one and the same being an out come of apparent error on the face of the record, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, Settlement And Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for adjudication of the matter afresh in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶29

Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 23^rd August, 2021 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter.

¶30

Since the authorities under State Government are Opposite Parties in the Revision Petition, the Government Advocate attached to the Court of Joint Commissioner, Settlement And Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack can receive notice on behalf of the State and defend their case.

¶31

The Revision Petition was filed in the year, 2003, and 18 years have elapsed in the meantime. Hence, it is directed that the Joint Commissioner shall do well to make an endeavour for early disposal of the Revision, preferably within six months from the date of first appearance of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

// 4 //

¶34

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

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

¶36

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶37

Prasant

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Trailokyanath Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trailokyanath 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

D.Rajendra Ku.Bindha Vs SBI

Prafulla Parida Vs the Sub Collector, Nilgiri

Akshaya Ku.Pradhan Vs Member,Board of Revenue,Orissa,Cuttack

Anasuya Vs State

Simanchala Acharya Vs the State of Odisha

Parthasarathi Das Vs Sk.Golam Madani