Disposed

Usoof Uddin v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC13 May 2024WP(C)/5636/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order dated 13.12.2013, finding that it was manipulated to be passed by the Consolidation Officer instead of the Assistant Consolidation Officer as directed by a prior order. The case was remitted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order under Annexure-2 was set aside, Objection Case No.76/2013 was remitted to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Usoof Uddin Vs State and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5636 of 2014

¶3

Sk. Usoof Uddin

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. D. Mohapara, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Sonak Mishra, A.S.C. for O.P. Nos.1 to 5 Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate for O.P. Nos.10 & 11 Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.9

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 13.05.2024

Order No.

Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sonak Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party No.9 and Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.10 & 11.

¶15

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Udala in Objection Case No.76 of 2013.

¶16

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, inter alia on the ground that, the earlier order of this Court dated 17.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.21630 of 2013 has been manipulated by Opposite Party Nos.10 and 11 to get the order under Annexure-2 (the impugned order) in their favour.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 09:50:26

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

The records in W.P.(C) No.21630 of 2013 have been called for by this Court. Perusal of the same reveals that in order dated 17.9.2013, direction was issued to the Opposite Party No.3 (the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Udala) to dispose of the Objection Case No.76/2013. But by manipulating “Opposite Party No.3” as “Opposite Party No.2”, the order was produced before Opposite Party No.2 (the Consolidation Officer, Udala), who disposed of the case in the impugned order. The copy of the order was produced by present Opposite Parties No.10 & 11, who are the Petitioners in the earlier writ petition, and therefore, the presumption is that present Opposite Parties No.10 & 11 have manipulated the order of this Court to get Objection Case No.76/2013 disposed of by the Consolidation Officer instead of Asst. Consolidation Officer. Therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-2 is set aside on this score alone and Objection Case No.76/2013 is remitted back to the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Udala, who is present Opposite Party No.5, for decision in accordance with law in terms of the order dated 17.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.21630 of 2013.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶23

( B.P. Routray)

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 09:50:26

¶25

B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Usoof Uddin v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usoof Uddin v. State and Ors.

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

Mrutyunjaya Sahu @ Bhikari Vs State of Odisha

Minati Kar Vs Amulya Kumar Mohapatra

Dhruba Charan Samal Vs Bikram Keshari PARIDA,O.A.S.(1)

Gourirani Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

St.Xaviers High School, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Rojalin Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha