Single judge set aside an order rejecting compensation claim for relying on incorrect record (Sabik instead of Hal) without reasoning and restored the matter for fresh consideration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7453 Of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)
Gayadhar Parikshya and another …. Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Order No.
3.
State of Odisha and others
…. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER 20.05.2022
1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is order dated 17th February, 2022 passed by the Collector, Jajpur. Petitioners’ claim for compensation was rejected by reliance on Sabik record. Petitioners’ claimed on basis of Hal record.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, Hal record caries error. State has preferred revision and adjudication is awaited.
3. Impugned order does not give any reason for not taking into consideration the Hal record. As such it is liable to be and is set aside. Misc. Case no.104 of 2021 is restored to opposite party no.2, for
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
reconsideration and order to be made within three weeks of
communication.
4. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting compensation claim without considering Hal record is liable to be set aside?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gayadhar Parikshya and another
State of Odisha and others
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
