Orissa Court July 1971 Judgments
Padmanav Pradhan and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori88
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The case of the petitioners may be stated in short. They are members of one family and they are residents of the ex-State of Pallahara which merged with the State of Orissa on 1-1-1948. Their ancestors had excavated the disputed tank in village Dimiria with an area of 2.80 acres pertaining to khata No, 58, on plot Nos. 502. 921 and 922, about 80 years back. After excavation of the tank their ancestors had planted several fruit bearing trees on its embankment. The ancestors and after their death their heirs, and at present the petitioners are in actual physical possession of the tank. They enjoy the fruits of the trees and the fish from the tank. In the finally published record-of-rights in 1916 the possession of their ancestors was noted in the remarks column. Thus the petitioners are in possession of the disputed tank with its embankment openly, peaceably and in their own right and have acquired right, title and interest in the disputed tank. In or about the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Misra Vs. Surendranath Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori115; 37(1971)CLT1052
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Puri allowing an application under Order 39, Rule 1. Civil P. C. The facts which are somewhat complicated are these: One Bhagaban Das had two sons Dinabandhu and Daitari Daitari had two sons, Narayan and Gopabandhu. Dina-bandhu's only son having died, he adopted Daitari's son Narayan. Narayan being issueless he adopted his daughter's son Sadananda Das (defdt. No. 3). Gopabandhu had two daughters. Defendant No. 1 Ratnakar Pati is the elder son-in-law and defendant No. 2 Narayan Misra is the younger son-in-law.2. Shortly before his death. Gopabandhu executed a Will bequeathing the entire joint family properties belonging to him and Sadananda Das in favour of the family deity (defendant No. 4) and created a trust under the terms of which the members of the family were to be maintained out of the usufruct of the trust property. It also provided for the constitution of a Committee for managing the trust. The testator h...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori195; 37(1971)CLT1007
Patra, J. 1. For extension of the Cuttack-Kujang Road near Gopalpur, a notification was issued by Government on 26-4-1963 for acquiring 0.08 decimals of homestead land out of plot No. 608 appertaining to khata No. 222 of village Gopalpur, belonging to the respondents. On the said plot of land stood a house The Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rupees 400/- as value of the homestead land at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre and the value of the house at Rs. 15,306/-. To this amount of Rs. 15,706/- was added the statutory compensation calculated at 15 per cent. payable under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). A sum of Rs. 18,827.20 p. in all was offered to the respondents which the latter accepted under protest, and on their request a reference was made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. The Subordinate Judge, Cuttack after necessary enquiry fixed the valuation of the land at Rs. 460/- and of the house at Rs. 30,000/- and tog...
Tag this Judgment!Pranakrushna Pradhan and anr. Vs. Harekrishna Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori91; 37(1971)CLT945
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the petitioners and opposite parties 1 to 3. ARTA PADHAN ________________________|__________________ | | | Dinabandhu Manguni Gurubari (died in 1958) (died issueless) (died in 1934) ______________|____________ _________|_______ | | | | |Harekrishna Ramkrushna Batakrushna Pranakrushana Balakrishna(O.P.1) (O.P.1) (O.P.1) (P.1) (P.2)The correctness: of the genealogy is not disputed before us. The petitioner's case is that the family was possessed of agricultural lands and they and opposite parties 1 to 3 as cosharers were in joint possession of the disputed lands. Dinabandhu, father of opposite parties 1 to 3, died in 1958. Thereafter Harekrishna (O. P.. No. 1) became the karta of the family. After the estate vested, O. P. No. 1 filed an application under Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for settlement of the disputed lands with O. Ps. 1 to 3 under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Padmalochan Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR88(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Deceased, Brajamohan Panda, was assessed with agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52. His case was that there was a partition between him and his sons in the year 1949 and it is only the income from his share that was assessable and not the income of the entire property which belongs to all the sharers. His stand has been rejected by all the assessing authorities including the Tribunal. He died during the pendency of the second appeal before the Tribunal. His son, the present petitioner, has been substituted in his place. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner asked for certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal to be referred to the High Court under Section 29(2) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Four questions were framed. The Tribunal rejected questions Nos. (2) and (3) but referred questions Nos. (1) and (4) which run thus :' (1) Whether, in the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Director of Agriculture (Engg.) Vs. Banambar Routray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ272Ori
ORDER1. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Industrial Tribunal refusing to set aside an ex pane award made by it on the ground that there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Rules made thereunder for restoration of a dispute by setting aside the ex parte award. The Tribunal is a party to present writ application though we have been asked to issue writ directing the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa to hear the petition afresh. Under the Rules framed by This Court the Tribunal was a necessary party. In the absence of the Tribunal this writ application would not be maintainable.2. Even upon merit we do not think the petitioner has a case. The opposite party was appointed as a foreman in the Central Work-shop-cum-implement Production Centre, Bhubaneswar. Over the termination of service of the opposite party a dispute arose and a conciliation proceeding followed. The petitioner par...
Tag this Judgment!Golak Chandra Bhadra and ors. Vs. Chintamani Bhadra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori197; 37(1971)CLT890
S. Acharya, J. 1. Defendants 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara affirming the decision of the trial court declaring the plaintiff's title and possession over the suit land. 2. The plaintiff's case, bereft of the unnecessary details and relevant for the points raised in this second appeal, is as follows:-- In the year 1924 Biswanath, Damo-dar. Jagabandhu and Radheshyam purchased the sikmi right in the suit land from one Chaitan Samal, and thereafter in the year 1928, they purchased the occupancy right in respect of the same land from one Khetrabasi Bhadra. The land remained vacant even after its purchase by the above named four persons, and as the plaintiff wanted the said land to build a cow-shed thereon. Biswanath Damodar. Jagabandhu and Radheshyam sole the suit land orally to him for a consideration of Rs. 40/-, about 25-26 years prior to the institution of the suit. As the vendors were rich and influential persons an...
Tag this Judgment!Collector, Cuttack Vs. Rajib Bhol
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori200; 37(1971)CLT348
A. Misra, J.1. The State is the appellant against an award passed by the Special Judicial Officer at Cuttack performing the functions of a court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (thereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. A 2.36-51/2 kadis of land situate In village Bhitargarh was acquired in pursuance of a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 31-10-1961, though in the impugned order the date of acquisition has been erroneously mentioned as 5-9-1963, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rupees 816.10 fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs. 709.65 and additional compensation by way of solatium at Rs. 106.45. The respondent claimed Rs. 5,000/- per acre towards the value of the acquired land, Rs. 3,000/- towards the value of the house and tank alleged to have existed thereon, Rs. 5,000/- towards the embankment of the land, Rs. 15,000/- as damages for the loss of fishing, besides some amount towards the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Anadi Charan Rout Vs. the Collector of Cuttack and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori202
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner's case is that he purchased a rice huller on 30th of May, 1957, and the same stopped functioning, due to mechanical troubles, in August 1958. On 22nd April, 1959, the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (21 of 1958), (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') came into force. On 1st September, 1960, the licence in favour of the petitioner was renewed. On 23rd of January, 1970, renewal was granted for the year 1970. There wassome complaint made by opposite party No. 3 before the S. D. O. Cuttack. that the petitioner had got the licence on certain false averments and his also was not a defunct rice mill. Against the order dated 23-1-1970 renewing the licence of the petitioner, opposite party No. 3 filed an appeal before the Secretary to the Government. Supply Department, (O. P. No. 2), and in the appellate order the Secretary gave a direction that the licence issued by the Collector should be revoked. In accordance with that direction, the Co...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behari Pansari Vs. Asoka Marketing Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori94
A.K. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir rejecting his objection under Section 47. Civil P. C. in Ex. Case No. 23 of 1967. The facts, in brief, are as follows:-- A Decree was passed by the Calcutta High Court on its original side in Award Case No. 74 of 1958 against the firm Ramgopalji Kantilal. The decree was received on transfer for execution by the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir on which Ex Case No. 23 of 1967 was started on 29-3-1967. Execution was sought against M/s. Ramgopalji Kantilal through proprietors Bipin Behari Pansari, the present appellant and Kantilal Pansari. As the names of these two persons did not appear on the decree, on objection raised by the office, the decree-holders filed an application under Order 21. Rule 50, Civil P. C. for leave to add the present appellant and Kantilal Pansari who are alleged to be partners of the judgment-debtor firm and to proceed against them for realisation of the decre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »