Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

a.s. naidu, j.1. the petitioner had approached the tahsildar, nayagarh by fining a petition under the miscellaneous certificate rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. the said petition was registered as misc. certificate case no. 1818 of 1998. according to the petitioner he had been adopted by shri sansar pradhan and the latter had no children. certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the court of the civil judge (jd),. nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said sansar pradhan. the said suit was registered as t.s. no. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. the tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid sansar pradhan and some other.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.S. Naidu, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536695',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Family',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536695',
		(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basudev Sahoo Vs Sub Collector and ors - Citation 536695 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536695',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Basudev Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.</p><p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.</p><p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.</p><p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT275',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sub-collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Family',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536695',
	(int) 1 => 'basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536695/basudev-sahoo-vs-sub-collector-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, Nayagarh by fining a petition under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules with a prayer to issue caste certificate in his favour. The said petition was registered as Misc. Certificate Case No. 1818 of 1998. According to the Petitioner he had been adopted by Shri Sansar Pradhan and the latter had no children. Certain disputes having cropped up with regard to his adoption he had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (JD),. Nayagarh with a prayer to declare him as the adopted son of said Sansar Pradhan. The said suit was registered as T.S. No. 10 of 1998 and a decree was passed therein on 8-7-1998 declaring him as the adopted son. The Tahsildar conducted some local enquiry, examined aforesaid Sansar Pradhan and some other villagers and without relying, upon the aforesaid decree of Civil Court held that he was not satisfied that the Petitioner had in fact been adopted by Sansar Pradhan and, accordingly, refused to grant the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh which was registered as Revenue Misc.Certificate Appeal No. 2 of 1998. The Sub-Collector also without relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted before this Court that the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector were bound by the aforesaid decree passed by a Civil Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for the caste certificate for any specific purpose and, as such, there was no bar for the aforesaid authorities to issue such certificate.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In course of hearing as this Court entertained some doubt, it called upon both the natural father and adoptive father of the Petitioner to appear before this Court, in consonance with the said direction both of them appeared before the Court and submitted that in fact out of love and affection Sansar has adopted the Petitioner as his son.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State forcefully argued that if a person belonging to general category goes on adoption to the family of a reserved category, then he is not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever available to the reserved category persons. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1011 he further submitted that no caste certificate can be granted in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of a civil Court decree for the purpose of utilizing the same in service or studies. But then the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar did not indicate that the certificate was necessary for any specific purpose. That apart, law is well settled that if a person belonging to general category is adopted by a family of reserved category, he will not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever enjoyed by the reserved category. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector were bound by the decree passed by a Civil Court.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid clear position, and as the decree passed by the Civil Court is binding on all, the same having not been varied or reversed by any competent Court, this Court directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate applied for by the Petitioner, but then with an endorsement by him on the said certificate that the same shall not be utilized for the purpose of education or Government service.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. With the aforesaid direction the Writ application is disposed of. <p>',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Family
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Sep-25-2007
Judge	A.S. Naidu, J.
Reported in	105(2008)CLT275
Appellant	Basudev Sahoo
Respondent	Sub-collector and ors.

Basudev Sahoo Vs. Sub-collector and ors. - Court Judgment