State of Orissa Vs. Dhobei Sethi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890. section 498-a: [s.b.sinha & r.m.lodha,jj] cruelty to wife - relatives of husband-girl friend or concubine of husband held, in the absence of any statutory definition, the term relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. the meaning of the word relative would depend upon the nature of the statute. it principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. by no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine of the husband in an etymological sense would be a relative. the word cruelty having been defined in terms of explanation appended to.....order1. though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.2. a notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act [for short, 'the act'] was published on july 16, 1970 acquiring ac. 2.02 dec. of land in survey nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at village pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the tahasil office building and staff quarters at niali. along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under section 17(4) of the act dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-a of the act. the declare lion under section 6 of the act was published on april 27, 1972. notice under sections 9 and 10 was published in the locality in december, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.

2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, 'the Act'] was published on July 16, 1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dec. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tahasil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The declare lion under Section 6 of the Act was published on April 27, 1972. Notice under Sections 9 and 10 was published in the locality in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O.J.C. No. 43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Similarly, some other owners filed O.J.C. No. 1573 of 1978, claiming interest for part of the land pursuant to a sale made after the notification namely in November, 1973. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.

3. As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he fe at subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.

4. As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was issued as early as on July 16, 1970, the writ petition having been filed after 7 years, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has not properly exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in upsetting the notification dated December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.

5. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.