Allowed

Satyabhama Mishra v. State

Orissa HC10 Jan 2023WP(C)/9828/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa set aside the Collector's order dismissing an appeal regarding land possession. The court held that the opposing parties should have impleaded the petitioners who remained in possession, remanding the appeal to the Collector for fresh hearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal remanded to Collector for fresh disposal within four months after hearing petitioners.

Satyabhama Mishra Vs State — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9828 of 2003

¶3

Satyabhama Mishra & Another

¶4

…. Petitioners Mr. Narayan P. Parija, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

10.01.2023

Misc. Case Nos.5162 of 2018 and 5163 of 2018

¶14

¶15

For the reasons stated in the applications, the prayers for substitution are allowed. The Misc. Cases are accordingly disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.9828 of 2003

¶17

The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 3^rd June, 2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioners in O.E.A. Lease (R) No.05 of 2002 against an order dated 28^th July, 2003 passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, thereby declining to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The land in question is in Plot 75/143 measuring Ac.0.02 decimal in Rameswarpur, PS, District-Jajpur. The Petitioners contend ground that the Opposite Parties were aware of the settlement of the land in favour of the Petitioners vide decree dated 10^th July, 1986 in T.S. Case No.132 of 1983 and yet approached the Sub-Collector twelve years thereafter without impleading the present Petitioners as parties.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

The present Petitioners continue to remain in possession of the land in question. They ought to have been added in the appeal filed by the Opposite Party No.5 before the Collector.

¶20

On that short ground, the impugned order dated 3^rd June, 2003 of the Collector is set aside and the appeal being O.E.A. Lease (R) No.05 of 2002 is remanded to the file of the Collector, Jajpur where it will be listed for directions on 1^st March, 2023 on which date the Petitioners will appear along with a downloaded copy of this order. The Collector, Jajpur will proceed to dispose of the said appeal afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter. Till then, the status quo as of today shall be maintained.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge

¶22

MRS/Laxmikant

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Satyabhama Mishra v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabhama Mishra v. State

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

Sudam Ch.Sahoo Vs the Secretary to Govt. and Others

Pushpanjali Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Sebati Mallick Vs State and Ors.

Er Debashisha Hota Vs Union of India

Commissioner of GST and Central EXCISE,R0URKELA Vs K.D.Sharma

Anup Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha