Disposed
Pramila Swain v. State of Odisha
Orissa HCWP(C)/36231/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK…
What the court decided
AI extract
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. 36231 of 2022
Pramila Swain
Petitioner
Mr. Anand Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
06.02.2023
“7. In the result, the appeal under Section 47A (3) of the Act at the behest of the appellant, be and the same, stands allowed against the respondents on contest. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 27th April, 2015 promulgated by the learned Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in UVM Case No.621 of 2007 and the consequential demand notice under Annexure-10 series is hereby set aside. Consequent upon which, UVM Case No.621 of 2007 is restored to file with a direction to respondent No.3 to
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
provide the parties to submit their representations and after holding an inquiry, as per Section 47-A (2) of the Act, to determine the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of the tripartite deed dated 23.05.2006, i.e., Annexure-3 and thereafter, to dispose it off (sic) on merit and in accordance with law by taking cognizance of the observations of the Court, as aforesaid, preferably within a period of six months hence. In the circumstances, however, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout.”
3.1 However, there is no material on record to show as to what step the Petitioner has taken pursuant to the judgment passed in FAO No.81 of 2015. Petitioner, at present, is aggrieved by the notice issued by Special Certificate Officer, Bhubaneswar asking him to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be committed to the Civil prison in execution of the Certificate No.129 of 2017 for Rs.4,54,124/- along with interest and cost. Since neither the order passed by the Additional SubCollector pursuant to the direction learned District Judge in FAO no.81 of 2015 nor the order passed in the Certificate proceeding is annexed to the writ petition, this Court is not in a position to consider the grievance of the Petitioner.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 2 of 2
Pramila Swain
State of Odisha
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court