Pushpa Devi Agrawal Vs the State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.7 to 10.

¶17

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order under Annexure-10 and a direction for compliance of the order under Annexure-6 in Civil Appeal No.15688 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) No.7013 of 1990 on the grounds stated therein.

¶18

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the order as at Annexure-3 submits that restoration has been directed in respect of the schedule land notwithstanding the deposit to have been made so revealed from Annexure-7 in compliance of Annexure-6. It is further submitted that mutation as was applied for by the original petitioner was disposed of vide Revenue Misc. Case No.100 of 2018 and was disallowed on the premise that the same is not permissible being a pre-settlement case. It is lastly submitted that

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

inspite of such deposit having been made by the petitioner in view of the order under Annexure-6, the proceeding in OLR Case No.32 of 1976 is pending disposal.

¶21

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.7 to 10 submits that the appeal before the Apex Court was dismissed and that apart, draft which was claimed to have been deposited was returned and received by the petitioner as made to appear from Annexure-9. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel that in absence of any compliance, as it is claimed by the petitioners, the schedule land is to be restored to the opposite parties in view of the order in OLR Case No.32 of 1976.

¶22

Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶23

In course of hearing, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners abandones the relief with respect to the order in Revenue Misc. Case No.100 of 2018 as at Annexure-10 and confines to the relief as to the proceeding in ORL Case No.32 of 1976 and compliance thereof in view of the Apex Court’s order as at Annexure-6.

¶24

Perused the Court’s order in OJC No.9 of 1984 as at Annexure-5, whereby, a decision dated 27^th January, 1983 (final) passed by the learned Special Officer, Northern Division in OLR Revision No.51 of 1980 was quashed confirming the order of the Revenue Office and the Appellate Authority, as against which, the SPL was filed by the original petitioner and was disposed of in Civil Appeal No.15688 of 1996 with a direction that a sum of Rs.1.5 lac shall be deposited by the petitioners in full satisfaction of the claims

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

within a period of two months from then. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of such an order dated 2^nd December, 1996, the original petitioner deposited the amount on 18^th January, 1997 and it was within time and thereafter, notice was issued to the opposite parties but till date, the proceeding in OLR Case No.32 of 1976 is pending disposal with a claim that the private opposite parties though appeared initially but defaulted thereafter. It is revealed from the record that the draft which was deposited by the original petitioner was returned to file a fresh one. It is claimed that there is compliance of the Apex Court’s order as at Annexure-6 but still, the mutation has not been allowed, rather, the resumption was directed in view of the order i.e. Annexure-3.

¶27

In view of the facts pleaded on record and submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and as the proceeding in OLR Case No.32 of 1976 is stated to be pending awaiting compliance of the order in Civil Appeal No.15688 of 1996, the Court, recording the objection of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for private opposite parties, is of the view that a direction is required to be issued to opposite party No.4 to pass a final order as per and in accordance with law. It is concluded that in case, there is compliance of the order i.e. Annexure-6, opposite party No.4 shall pass necessary order therein filed under Section 23 of the OLR Act.

¶28

Hence, it is directed.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be compiled with by opposite party No.4 upon receiving a certified copy of the order followed by disposal in respect of OLR Case No.32 of 1976 at the earliest preferably within

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with proper notice to the private opposite parties. The opposite parties are granted the liberty to raise all such defences available to them before the OLR Authority which shall be duly examined upon verification of the Court’s order in Civil Appeal No.15688 of 1996.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶33

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶34

TUDU

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 19-Dec-2024 11:43:20

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Pushpa Devi Agrawal v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi Agrawal v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Mallik Vs Rebati Mallik

Raghunath Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Sandip Kumar Malla Vs Member,Board of Revenue,Cuttack

Sisir Ku.Behera Vs State

Jairam Agarwalla Vs State

Sisir Ku.Behera Vs State