Disposed

Jharana Khuntia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Feb 2023WP(C)/1431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an IA for modification of the disposing order in W.P.(C) No. 1431 of 2023. The Court permitted a clerical correction regarding gender pronouns but rejected the prayer for modification regarding the applicability of revenue notifications.

What did the court decide?

The typographical error 'his' instead of 'her' in the order dated 16th February, 2023 was corrected. The prayer for modification regarding notifications was refused. Extension of time granted for subm

Jharana Khuntia Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 1431 OF 2023

¶2

Jharana Khuntia

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Alok Kumar Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

17.03.2023

I.A. No. 3300 of 2023

¶15

¶16

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 16^th February, 2023 by which the writ petition was disposed of.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in 6^th line at paragraph-5 of the order dated 16^th February, 2023, it has been inadvertently stated “his” instead of “her” as the Petitioner is a lady, which needs correction.

¶19

Considering the submission made, the typographical error in the order dated 16^th February, 2023 be corrected accordingly to the aforesaid extent.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that since deed of cancellation of sale executed in favour of the Petitioner was registered in the year, 2006, the notifications dated 23^rd May, 2011 of the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack and dated 18^th December, 2012 of the Government of Odisha,

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar are not applicable to the case at hand.

¶24

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that prayer with regard to applicability of the notifications cannot be considered in a petition for modification of the order.

¶25

Since the Petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid notifications in the writ petition, the prayer to the effect that those notifications are not applicable to her case, is not sustainable. Further, the law/instruction prevailing at the time of consideration of the complaints made by the Petitioner should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to modify the order to the effect that notification under Annexure-5 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid direction, time fixed for the Petitioner for submission of the documents along with certified copy of the order is extended for a further period of two weeks.

¶27

The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶29

application.

¶30

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

bks

¶32

Page 2 of 2

Jharana Khuntia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jharana Khuntia 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

Raseswar Nayak Vs Minarbha Nayak

Harish Ch.Dey Vs Parbati Dey

Dillip Khanda Vs Kumari Nayak and Anr.

Nityananda Panda Vs Suchitra Rath

Banalat Dora and Anr. Vs S.Simanchalam T.C

Biswanath Sirka Vs the Collector, Mayurbhanj