Orissa Court January 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jai Singh Vs. S.D.O. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1971
Reported in: 37(1971)CLT261
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. An application was filed by opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 under Clause 3(2) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation. 1956 (Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulation) for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land. Their case was that they were co-sharers in respect of this land with Chammar and Sana (not parties to the writ application) and to their knowledge no transfer was effected of this land in favour of the petitioner. An objection was filed by the petitioner to the effect that he had taken a licence of the land from Chamar who is a co-sharer of Saha and opposite party Nos. 4 to 6. The S. D. O. who is the competent authority passed an order of eviction. The petitioner went in appeal, but the same was dismissed. Against the appellate order, this writ has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. Mr. Das for the petitioner raises the following cont...
Silla Ramulu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1401
ORDERB.K. Patra, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of Shri G. C. Ray, Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur convicting the petitioner Under Section 448, I, P.C. and sentencing him to-pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days and further directing Under Section 522,. Criminal P.C. that possession of the disputed house be delivered to the complainant. The disputed house admittedly belongs to one Api Gouduni (P.W. 1). The petitioner was a tenant in that house-for about 14 years and according to the prosecution case he had vacated it about four months before the occurrence as-the house required extensive repairs. The prosecution case is that after the petitioner vacated the house, the complainant almost reconstructed it and had' kept certain articles belonging to her therein under lock and key. On the night of 31-7-1966 at about 2 a.m., the-petitioner is alleged to have broken open the lock of the house and forcibly entered the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›