Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sudarsan Dash Vs. State and ors.

Sudarsan Dash vs State and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Aug 27, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1084253

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudarsan Dash

Respondent

State and ors.

Excerpt

.....of the petitioners that the lease granted in favour of ullash chandra patnaik has been cancelled by the tahasildar in misc. case no.90 of 1981. hence, they obtained certified copy of the r.o.r and it came to their knowledge that behind their back and without any legal notice, the lease has been cancelled. they 2 filed an application under r.t.i act to obtain information with regard to status of w.l.case no.295 of 1962-63 and they obtained only extract of some orders.so far as record in misc. case no.90 of 1981 was concerned, the same was not available. the petitioners obtained the said information under the r.t.i act in application no.761 of 2011 (annexure-6).hence the present petition. learned addl. government advocate produced the record of w.l.case no.295 of 1962-63. the said record does not reveal in what basis lease was granted. it also appears from the description of the facts as contended by the petitioners that they came to knot about the cancellation of the said lease from the settlement authority, however, they have not disclosed when they came to knot about the same. since cancellation of lease is of the year 1981, we are not inclined to interfere with the same at this belated stage. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ……………… s. panda, j ……………………. dr. b.r.sarangi, j ashok 3

Full Judgment

WP(C) No.32348 o”

05.

27.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.

Government Advocate.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the Tahasildar, Jatni for necessary correction in the R.O.R pertaining to Khata No.282/1 measuring Ac.1.000 corresponding to Sabik Khata No.359 (Part) of Mouza-Ogalgada and to record the name of the petitioners in respect of Ac.0.180 decimals of land under stitiban status.

It is contended by the petitioners in the writ application that in W.L.Case No.295 of 1962-63, lease was granted in favour of one Ullash Chandra Patnaik in respect of the land appertaining to Sabik Khata No.359 (Part) under Sabik Khata No.502.

While continuing as such, his name was recorded under occupancy status.

The said lessee for his legal necessary transferred Ac.0.180 decimals of land in favour of the father of the present petitioners by registered sale deed dated 8.6.1966 and 12.5.1967 vide Annexures 1 and 2 respectively.

After purchasing the property, the father of the present petitioners was continuing in possession and paying the rent to the State.

The settlement operation commenced in the suit Mouza.

Hence, the petitioners approached the local R.I and the Settlement Officer for correction of the relevant records and for payment of rent.

Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the lease granted in favour of Ullash Chandra Patnaik has been cancelled by the Tahasildar in Misc.

Case No.90 of 1981.

Hence, they obtained certified copy of the R.O.R and it came to their knowledge that behind their back and without any legal notice, the lease has been cancelled.

They 2 filed an application under R.T.I Act to obtain information with regard to status of W.L.Case No.295 of 1962-63 and they obtained only extract of some ordeRs.So far as record in Misc.

Case No.90 of 1981 was concerned, the same was not available.

The petitioners obtained the said information under the R.T.I Act in Application No.761 of 2011 (Annexure-6).Hence the present petition.

Learned Addl.

Government Advocate produced the record of W.L.Case No.295 of 1962-63.

The said record does not reveal in what basis lease was granted.

It also appears from the description of the facts as contended by the petitioners that they came to knot about the cancellation of the said lease from the settlement authority, however, they have not disclosed when they came to knot about the same.

Since cancellation of lease is of the year 1981, we are not inclined to interfere with the same at this belated stage.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

……………… S.

Panda, J …………………….

Dr.

B.R.Sarangi, J Ashok 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial