Remanded

Harendra Ku Bhanjdeo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Jun 2023WP(C)/17966/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an auction purchaser in occupation of land, filed a writ petition seeking quashal of an order passed by a Tahasildar without issuing notice. The High Court set aside the impugned order for lack of opportunity of hearing and remanded the matter for expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.11.2002 set aside; matter remanded to Tahasildar/ Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to hear case affording opportunity to petitioner.

Harendra Ku Bhanjdeo Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17966 of 2016

¶2

Harendra Kumar Bhanjdeo ….. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. J.P. Chowdhury, Advocate

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

….. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶10

MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

¶11

ORDER 26.06.2023

¶12

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 15.

¶13

Heard Mr. J.P. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶14

The petitioner, who is the auction purchaser has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 05.11.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 in W.L. Case No. 1630 of 1974 under Annexure-4.

¶15

Mr. J.P. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 05.11.2002 has been passed behind his back. According to him the original lessee has sold the land in favour of the petitioner and he is in occupation of the land. But without issuing notice to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed 5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication contended that the land has been granted on lease to the lessee, but Location: Orissa High Court Date: 27-Jun-2023 11:13:13 subsequently he has sold the same to the petitioner. However, if the

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

subsequent purchaser has not been noticed, in that event the order dated 05.11.2002 may not be sustainable in the eye of law.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the original lessee has sold the land in favour of the petitioner and the order impugned was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner causing prejudice to the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, sets aside the order dated 05.11.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 in W.L. Case No. 1630 of 1974 under Annexure-4 and remits the matter back to the Tahasildar/ Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to hear and dispose of W.L. Case No. 1630 of 1974 by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order.

¶20

Arun

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Harendra Ku Bhanjdeo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Ku Bhanjdeo 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

Padmanabha Rout Vs State and Ors.

Sasmita Bhoi @Das Mohapatra Vs Padmabati Behera

The D.M. -Cum- Collector,Sundargarh Vs Gajendra Pr.Jain

K.S.Kumandan Sons Vs State

M/S.Kanakadhara Mini Vs Commnr.of Commercia

Alekha Vs Debendranath