Lily Padhy@Runu Padhy Vs Kamal Singh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). No.14290 of 2016

¶3

Lily Padhy @ Runu Padhy …. Petitioners & another

¶4

Mr. B.N. Samantaray, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Kamal Singh & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.4) Mr. G.C. Samantaray, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2)

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.

06.02.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

2. The Writ Petition has been preferred by two legal heirs of Late Harihar Mahapatra with a prayer to set aside the order dated 02.04.2016 passed in M.A.C. No.126 of 2008 by the District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T., Berhampur, vide which the Court below, while modifying the order dated 12.12.2015, instead of ordering for apportionment of the awarded amount equally amongst the four legal heirs , passed the following order:

¶14

“ Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh & fifty thousand) only in the name of Petitioner No.1-Surya Narayan @ Babula Mohapatro and Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand) only each in the name of the petitioners No.3-Smt. Lily Padhy @ Runu Padhy and No.4-Smt. Jhunu Palo shall be kept in fixed deposit at least for a period of five years in any Nationalised Bank of their choice against which neither any loan or pledge treating the

¶15

deposits as security nor any premature withdrawal for any purpose is permissible. Quarterly interest is payable to the depositors at their option. Out of the rest amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only, a sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty-five thousand) only and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only in cash shall be paid to the petitioner No.1-Surya Narayan @ Babula Mohapatro and the petitioner No.2-Smt. Pramila Mohapatro respectively.”

¶16

3. Pursuant to order dated 19.08.2016, notice being issued to the contesting Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 , though the A.Ds. have returned after valid service, the Opposite Party No.3 goes unrepresented.

¶17

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also the learned Counsel for the private Opposite Party No.4 and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2).

¶18

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order submits, though his clients moved an application for modification of the order regarding apportionment of the awarded amount and the Counsel for the present Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4, who were also the claimants before the Court below along with the present Petitioners, made an endorsement on the said Petition that they have no objection to the said prayer made in the application for modification of the order and it was also duly recorded in the impugned order by the Court below, while modifying the order dated 12.12.2015 vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2016, instead of ordering for equal apportionment of the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Court below, without any basis, passed a discriminatory order so far as

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

apportionment of the compensation amount is concerned. Since the said petition has not been disclosed in the Writ Petition, being directed, the learned counsel for the Petitioners files a photocopy of the said Petition dated 02.04.2016 along with a memo.

¶21

6. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.4, being confronted with the said Petition, fairly concedes before this Court that the learned counsel of his client, who was also the counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 before the court below, consented for the said prayer for equal apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the four legal heirs .

¶22

7. In view of the admitted facts as detailed above, the impugned order dated 02.04.2016 passed in M.A.C No.126 of 2008 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below with a direction to pass an appropriate order afresh in terms of the prayer made in the petition dated 02.04.2016 for equal apportionment of the compensation amount and re-fix the terms of deposit and disbursement, as deemed fit and proper.

¶23

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

9. The photocopy of the Petition dated 02.04.2016 in M.A.C. No.75 of 2013 filed along with a memo in the Court, be kept on record.

¶25

10. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application as per rules.

¶26

Kanhu

¶27

(S. K. Mishra)

¶28

Signature Not Verified Judge

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 07-Feb-2024 13:50:58

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Lily Padhy@Runu Padhy v. Kamal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lily Padhy@Runu Padhy v. Kamal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indusekhar Panda Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation,(Esic)

Murali Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pramila Samantaray Vs Collector,Khurda

Krushna Ch.Padhi Vs State and Ors.

Lily Padhy@Runu Padhy Vs Kamal Singh

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Talcher Vs Murari Charan Mishra