Dismissed

Yedla Siva Kumar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Apr 2024WP(C)/9500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenged the biennial revision of market value for immovable properties in Gajapati District, alleging the revising Committee was not properly constituted because nominated private members were absent from the meeting. The Court held that composition was correct and attendance was a factual matter not requiring inquiry in a PIL, finding the petition meritless.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yedla Siva Kumar Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 9500 of 2024

¶3

Yedla Siva Kumar

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

M/s. P. K. Mohapatra, Advocate and associates

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Ms. Saswata Patnaik, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

24.04.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising grievance against biennial revision of market value of the immovable properties under the Gajapati District mainly on the ground that the Committee responsible for considering biennial revision has not been duly constituted in accordance with Rule 37 of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952.

¶15

It is the petitioner’s case that the aforesaid provision requires presence of two private persons to be nominated by the Chairman to be the Members of the Committee. However, in the meeting dated 02.02.2024, though, two persons namely Biraja Prasad Patra and Y.S. Murty have been shown to have participated in the meeting for

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

biennial revision of benchmark valuation for the year of 2024-26, in fact, they were not present. Accordingly, he contends that the decision taken in such meeting can not be said to be legal.

¶18

The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Committee was not properly constituted has no substance. The Rule required presence of two private persons, one of them being an expert valuer as a nominee of the Chairperson in the Committee. Such two persons were included in the constitution of the Committee. The submission that the two private persons were not present in the meeting on a particular date is a question of fact which need not be gone into in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a PIL. We, however, notice that the signatures of the said two persons are present on the minutes of the meeting dated 02.02.2024.

¶19

This writ petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶21

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2024 15:54:25

Yedla Siva Kumar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yedla Siva Kumar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Pujhari Vs Anu Garg, I.A.S.

Sipra Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Padma Charan Paramanik Vs Janmejay Sahoo, Tahasildar, Tangi

Narendra Ku Nayak Vs P.O.,Labour Court

Harapriya Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Prasad Panda Vs Madhusmita Nanda, Tahasildar, Jatani