Dismissed

Lokanath Behera v. Joint Commnr.

Orissa HC11 Mar 2022OJC/1644/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found the Revisional Authority committed an error by mechanically interfering with a previous order. Since no pleadings regarding property transaction validity were raised, the Authority had no occasion to examine it. The writ petition challenging the revisional order was allowed, setting aside the reconsidered order and restoring the original settlement order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order at Annexure-3 is set aside and the order at Annexure-1 is restored.

Lokanath Behera Vs Joint Commnr. — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

O.J.C. No.1644 of 1999

¶3

Lokanath Behera & Anr.

Petitioner(s)

Mr. D. Mohapatra,

Advocate

-versus-

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation & Anr.

¶10

Mr. S.P. Panda, Addl. Govt. Adv. Mr. N.C. Pati, Adv.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER 11.03.2022

Order No.

1. On further hearing of the matter and pursuant to the detail order on 9.03.2022, today in course of hearing of the matter, there is a clear statement by the learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties that there is no materials available in agitating the question involving validity of the transaction of the property by the mother involved as the mother guardian. There is no such plea even taken in the foundation court and the Consolidation Officer and such ground was not available before the Revisional Authority for consideration. This position has also been confirmed by the learned Counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties on going through the objection of such party in the foundation Court itself. This Court thus finds, there was no occasion for the Revisional Authority to get into the aspects not

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

available for consideration. Thus committed wrong in interfering in the impugned order at Annexures-1 & 2 and reversing the same. Further there is also recording in the previous order that for the own submission of the Opposite Parties that there exists a previous settlement, further on spot visit by the Consolidation Officer, there is also recording by the Consolidation Officer in the order involving the Original Proceeding that not only there is previously partition, but the parties are also in enjoyment of their share in terms of such partition and thus are in possession of the disputed property. In the circumstance this Court finds, there is no ground to entertain the revision. For the discussions made in the order dated 9.03.2022 and the observation made hereinabove, this Court finds, there is mechanical disposal of the revision. As a consequence this Court interfering in the order at Annexure-3 sets aside the same in restoration of the order at Annexure-1.

¶19

This writ petition succeeds.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge

¶20

Ayaskanta Jena

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Lokanath Behera v. Joint Commnr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokanath Behera v. Joint Commnr.

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

Swagatika Das Vs State of Odisha

Satyabhama Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Hemendra Narayan Das Vs State of Odisha

Trailokyaranjan Dash Vs State of Odisha

Snehalata Tripathy Vs Pramodini Rath

Nirmala Adhikaripanda Vs Swapan Kumar Padhi