Orissa Court September 1977 Judgments
Panu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: 44(1977)CLT643; 1978CriLJ690
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of his paternal grandfather Markanda Gochhayat.2. Tersely put and shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is as follows:The deceased Markanda Gochhayat was an old man of 70 years. He had five sons, viz. Jhunturu, Nadia, Makuru (P. W. 3), Bira and Purandar. The appellant is the son of Purandar. 10 to 12 jears ago Nadia, Makuru, Bira and Purandar lived separate from the deceased, but Jhunturu continued to live with him jointly. The deceased had some lands, cattle and utensils. He did not give a share of the property to his separated sons. Purandar, the father of the appellant was demanding a share out of the property. He had convened a Panchayat for division of the property. On 18-8-73 the deceased lodged information at the police station that the appellant and his father forcibly plough...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Raghunath Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1977
Reported in: 44(1977)CLT513; 1978CriLJ1059
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. These are five applications made under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. of 1973 (by mistake described as Section 492) by the State of Orissa for expunging certain observations made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ganjam in his common order in five miscellaneous proceedings bearing numbers M. Ps. 1 to 5 of 1976. The petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate were different persons but each of them had been affected by seizure of khandasari molasses from him by the excise staff of the district of Ganjam.2. On 16-9-1975, twenty barrels of khandasari molasses (Gur) were seized from one Raghunath Jena; on 23-1-76, 12 barrels of khandasari molasses were seized from one Rajendra Prasad Jena; on 25-1-1976, 53 barrels of the same khandasari molasses were seized from one G. Appa Rao; on 24-1-1976, 14 barrels of khandasari molasses were seized from one Raghunath Hota and on 3-1-1976, 3 barrels of the same stuff were seized from one Ramchandra Sahu. These seizures were f...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Das Vs. Utkal University
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori68; 45(1978)CLT24
Shankar, C.J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner, a student of M. P. C. College, Baripada, has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party, Utkal University, to publish his results of the B. Sc. Examination.2. The petitioner appeared in the Annual B. Sc. Examination of the College held in 1974 and secured pass marks in the total and compartmental marks in all subjects except in Chemistry and Mathematics, He was thereafter entitled to appear in these two subjects only and had the right to claim exemption frombeing examined in the other subjects in which he had passed according to Rule 31 of Chapter III of the University Regulations (extracted hereafter). Consequently for the next supplementary examination held in 1974 he filled up the form and deposited the fees etc. to take the papers in Chemistry and Mathematics. According to the petitioner he fell ill and did not appear in this examination. For the next Annual examination o...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn and ors. Vs. Rudranarayan Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori203
S. Acharya, J. 1. Second Appeal No. 195/74 arises out of Title Appeal No. 101 of 1973 which was in respect of Title Suit No. 48 of 1966. The defendants in the suit have lost in both the courts below and have preferred this second appeal.2. Second Appeal No. 196 of 1974 arises out of Title Appeal No. 96 of 1073 which relates to Title Suit No. 138 of 3969. In that suit the appellants in this appeal were the principal defendants. Besides them, there was another defendant (pro forma defendant No. 5) in that suit. In that suit the reliefs claimed were jointly on behalf of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No. 5. That suit was dismissed, and the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 96 of 3973 impleading pro forma defendant No. 5 as pro forma respondent No. 5 in the said appeal. Both Title Appeals Nos. 101/73 and 36/73 were disposed of by one judgment by the court below. So byorder No. 3 dated 28-8-74 passed in Second Appeal No. 196 of 1974 both these second appeals were ordered to be h...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vasudeva Rao Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1977
Reported in: 44(1977)CLT538; 1978CriLJ1396
N.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months more under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case is that the appellant was the Sub-Assistant Engineer (Overseer) under Banki Block No. 1 for two years, including 1971. P. W. 1, a Ward Member of Bandala Gram Panchayat took contract for construction of a grain gola building at Baunsaput in 1959 at Rs. 5,200/-. Though he completed the work within two to three years, yet no final measurement was made nor final bill was passed and the Block also did not take delivery of possession of that building. Ultimately, under orders of the B D.O., the appellant went and measured the work on 10-10...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Senapati Vs. Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori123; 44(1977)CLT583
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff has carried this second appeal against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 3 restraining them from evicting him from the disputed property and prohibiting defendants from recovering the final penalty assessed on him under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. 2. According to the plaintiff, he applied to the Tahsildar of Cuttack for obtaining lease of the three acres of land from out of plot no. 2210 under Anabadi Khata No. 408 in Tauzi No. 4943 and the lease was for agricultural purposes. Piaintiff's application was registered as lease case No. 328 of 1961-62 and on 20th of December, 1961, the Tahsildar directed, grant of lease in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Salami of Rs. 300/-and annual rent of Rs. 19.44. In January, 1962, the Naib Tahsildar issued appropriate rent receipts. The Tahsildar Amin demarcated the leasehold and put t...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kishore Patnaik Vs. Harekrushna Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori125; 44(1977)CLT597
S. Acharya, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below has preferred this appeal. 2. The plaintiff's case in short is that he purchased the suit land by oral sale en 25-10-54 from Laxmi Bewa, the original, owner thereof, for Rs. 95/- and took delivery of possession of the same. Thereafter he continued in peaceful possession of the property and got the same mutated in his name. After the death of Laxmi Bewa on 2-2-55 the plaintiff obtained permission from the municipality for constructing a house on the suit land. The plaintiff remained absent from Baripada for a long time and in 1962 he came to learn that defendant No. 1 was trying to construct a house forcibly on the suit site. So the plaintiff initiated a proceeding Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. which ultimately was decided in favour of defendant No. 1. Hence this suit. 3. Defendant No. 1's case is that he orally purchased the suit land from Lax-mi Dei for Rs. 60/- on 30-5-41 and got delivery of possession of the same. L...
Tag this Judgment!Paramananda Mohanty and ors. Vs. Bira Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori114; 45(1978)CLT83
Mohanti, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants, arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for wrongful catching and removal of fish from a tank leased to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 7,000/-. The claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 4,500/- with proportionate costs.2. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 11 are residents of village Chhelia under Madhapur Gram Panchayat. There is a big tank locally known as Bada Pokhari in village Chhela under the management and control of Madhapur Gram Panchayat. The fishery right of this tank is leased out from time to tune on each occasion for a term of three years, by public auction held by the Gram Panchayat. The lease granted in favour of defendant No. 1 expired on 31-3-62. The tank was put to auction on 5-4-62 and the plaintiff gave the highest bid for a premium of Rs. 33/-per year. He was granted lease for three years, that is 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 expiring at the end of March 1965. The plaintiff deposited the first year's premium...
Tag this Judgment!Manhu Mallik and anr. Vs. Smt. Gedi Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori216
S. Acharya, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court reversing the decision of the trial Court in favour of the appellants in the suit instituted against the appellants and some others.2. The plaintiffs' suit is for Declaration of their permanent Sikimi tenancy right under defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit land and for confirmation of possession thereof with a declaration that defendants 1 and 2 have the right only to realise rent from the plaintiffs and have no right to khas possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs further pray to inject the defendants permanently from creating any disturbance in the possession of the suit lands by the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiff's case shortly stated is that Indramani Behera and the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 3 to 8 were recorded in the C. S. record of rights as Sthitiban tenants in respect of the suit lands. Under Indramani Behera and the said defendants, Agani Bewa ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›