Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors. - 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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$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

ordera.s. naidu, j.1. heard.the order dated 25-1-2006 (annexure-3) passed by the joint commissioner of consolidation in consolidation revision no. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this writ petition. the said revision case had been filed under section 36 of the orissa consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation of land act, 1972. it appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid act, objection cases were filed before the concerned consolidation officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the petitioner. being aggrieved by the said order of the consolidation officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the deputy director, bhadrak. both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets,.....

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

ORDER

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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. Heard.

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by 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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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

5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.

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' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536859',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536859',
		(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs Commissioner Consolidation and ors - Citation 536859 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536859',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation 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 order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-09-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.S. Naidu, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.</p><p>1. Heard.</p><p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.</p><p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.</p><p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.</p><p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.</p><p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT478',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536859',
	(int) 1 => 'arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536859/arnapurna-tripathy-vs-commissioner-consolidation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.S. Naidu, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.<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