Partly allowed

Trilokesh Behera v. Anandini Behera

Orissa HC15 May 2023WP(C)/23252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa set aside a Revision under Section 32 of the OSS Act, 1958, dismissed for non-prosecution, which deprived the petitioner of property rights. Costs were imposed on private opposite parties, and the proceeding was remitted to be reopened with a final disposal directive.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.7.2017 set aside; costs of Rs. 1000 paid to each private opposite party; proceeding reopened with hearing fixed for 6.6.2023; status quo maintained.

Trilokesh Behera Vs Anandini Behera — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) NO.23252 OF 2017

¶2

Trilokesh Behera …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr.U.C.Behura, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Anandini Behera & ors.

¶6

….
Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr.K.Pattnaik, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
15.5.2023
WP(C) NO.23252 OF 2017 & I.A.NO.6340 OF 2023

¶9

WP(C) NO.23252 OF 2017 & I.A.NO.6340 OF 2023 Order No. 4. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This Court finds, the main challenge involving the Writ Petition appears to be order dated 14.7.2017 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in OSS Case No.2733/2016 and the order dated 22.10.2016 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No.5/2011. In course of submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner confined to the challenge of the order at Annexure-1 only and submitted accordingly. Taking this Court to the reason of dismissal of the proceeding, vide Annexure-1, Mr.Behura, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted, there was bona vide default of the Petitioner

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

and the scope of the Petitioner should not have been curtailed by dismissing the proceeding for default of the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the private O.Ps., however, though did not dispute that the proceeding was dismissed for nonprosecution but attempted to justify the impugned order as an outcome of negligence of the Petitioner and these O.Ps. should not

¶14

suffer for their no latches.

¶15

Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court finds, vide the order dated 14.7.2017, the Member, Board of

¶16

Revenue has come to observe as follows :-

¶17

<No one is present for the petitioner.

¶18

This revision has been filed u/s.32 of the OSS Act, 1958. Meanwhile, it is seen that the suit village Jharsuguda has been finally published on 03.11.1982. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the case is dropped. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate court to ventilate his claim. Pronounced the order in the open Court today i.e. 14^th July, 2017.=

¶19

Reading the above and finding that there is no dispute that

¶20

the proceeding under Section 32 of the OSS Act got disposed of for non-prosecution, this Court finds, the nature of proceeding deserved a contesting order. It is only keeping this in view and as this Court finds, the scope with the Petitioner with regard to property has been

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

taken away by dismissal of the matter for his non-appearance, the request of the Petitioner deserves to be considered.

¶24

It is at this stage, keeping this in view, this Court finds, for the conduct of the Petitioner, there is unnecessary suffering to the private O.Ps.1 to 4, while interfering with the impugned order dated 14.7.2017 and setting aside the same, this Court imposes cost of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand) to be paid to each of the private

¶25

O.Ps. for their suffering for their no latches within one week from today. Based on filing of receipt on payment of cost and the certified copy of the order, the proceeding involved will be re-opened. For

¶26

there is fresh disposal, providing opportunity to the Parties concerned required therein, this Court directs the Parties involved herein to appear before the Member, Board of Revenue on 6^th June, 2023 and take the date of hearing. The proceeding is also directed to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the Parties. For Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the private O.Ps. apprehending change in the nature and character of the properties by the Petitioner taking advantage of pendency of the proceeding, this Court directs all the Parties herein to maintain status

¶27

quo involving the disputed proceeding till final outcome in the Section 32 Proceeding herein.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

With this observation and direction, the Writ Petition as well

¶31

as the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶32

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶33

M.K.Rout

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Designation: Astt.Registrar-cum-Sr.Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-May-2023 17:57:22

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Trilokesh Behera v. Anandini Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilokesh Behera v. Anandini Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Osi Dei Vs State and Ors.

Polar Pharma India L Vs

Chitra Ganda @Bag Vs Konark Institute of

Udayanath Kandi Vs State of Odisha

M/S Nama Sidhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal Vs State of Odisha

M/S Nama Sidhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal Vs State of Odisha