Orissa Court July 1983 Judgments
Royaka Mangulu and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Ori1
B.K. Behera, J. 1. The three writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been heard analogously as agreed to by the parties and will be governed by this common judgment. Challenge is to the decision of the State Government vesting the right of collection of the tamarind and tamarind seeds from the Government forests in the Rayagada Forest Range in the district of Koraput, in the opposite party No. 4 Shri Doki China Guruvulu Son and Company, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, namely, Doki Satyanarayana, for utilization in its industry for a period of three years with effect from Oct. 1, 1981 in accordance with the State Government's Industrial Policy Resolution. The petitioners impugn this decision and the consequent orders passed for its implementation as per Annexures 3 to 5 in O. J. C. No. 67 of 1983 and Annexures 2 to 4 in the other writ applications, as illegal, invalid and inoperative in law, being in violation of Articles 14 and 19 o...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarsan Misra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ori277; 56(1983)CLT463
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This writ application arises out of a ceiling proceeding under Chap. IV, Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. The petitioners are the sons of late Gour Chandra Misra. Their mother is Sitamani, opposite party No. 5.3. A suo motu proceeding underSection 42, Orissa Land Reforms Act (forshort, the Act) was started treating Sitamani as the head of the family. The sonswere not parties. In due course draftstatement was prepared showing 8.48acres as surplus and was published requiring the landholder to file objection, objection was filed by Sitamanistating that her sons after partition were in possession ofsubstantial part of the property in theirown rights. They were not members ofher family as per the definition of'family' contained in Section 37 (b) of theAct. It was also contended that Sitamaniwas holding certain land as donee undera deed of gift executed by her late husband. It was canvassed that proceedingin respect of Sitamani could be for thelands received by her as a donee a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narayan Rao and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori32; 1984(I)OLR85
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These tour writ petitions filed by the ex-directors and the ex-cashier of Central Co-operative Marketing & Textile Syndicate, Limited against the order of the appellate authority--Minister of State, Co-operation, Orissa--in a surcharge proceeding have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Petitioners in ' O. J. Cs. 512, 696 and 769 of 1978 are the ex-directors or their substituted legal representatives while petitioner in O. J. C. No. 513 of 1978 is the former cashier of the society.2. A society in the name and style of Ganjam District Co-operative Cloth and Yarn Society had been registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, on 3-7-1945. The name of the society was changed to Central Co-operative Marketing & Textile Syndicate, Limited on 10-7-1949. The accounts of the society were audited on different dates in 1953 and 1954 and audit reports were submitted. The said audit reports revealed acts of omission and commissio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Rajendra Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori86
P.K. Mohanti, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a reference under S, 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. An extent of 6.09 acres of land appertaining to plots Nos. 692 and 693 under holding No. 23 in mouza Kalamati was acquired by Government for the State Live Stock Breeding Farm. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23-1-1964 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 22-9-1964. The compensation awarded by the Collector was a sum of Rs. 929.72 Paise only. On an application by the respondent the necessary reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Civil Court. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre which according to him was the prevailing market value of the land in question. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre.additional compensation at the rate of 15 per cent of the total amount of compensation, and interest at the rate of 6 per ce...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. the R. Udayagiri Regional Marketing Co-operative ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori73; 56(1983)CLT323; 1984(I)OLR59
P.C. Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,718,73 paise with costs and interest. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this appeal, 2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a registered co-operative society sponsored by the Government of Orissa. Its business headquarters is at Parlakhemundi. It carries on business in varieties of goods and also undertakes the distribution work of Government goods. The Government of Orissa sponsored a scheme to supply chsmical fertilisers to the farmers through the Orissa State Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, known as 'the Apex Society, Regional Marketing Societies and Primary Societies constituted in the rural areas to cater to the needs of the farmer Rules were framed by Government for easy and, smooth distribution of the goods under the control and direction of the Director of Agriculture who has been impleaded in the suit as the second defendant. Government used to release their stork of chemical ferti...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadeb Nayak Vs. Satyabadi Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori30
R. C. Patnaik, J.1. The plaintiff brought an action for partition claiming 1/4 share together for himself and defendant 1, his brother. The suit was dismissed by the trial court; but decreed in appeal. Hence this second appeal by defendant 11.2. The parties are relations. One Arta had four sons, Ganga and Narayan through the first wife and Jagannath and Raghu through the second wife. Satya-badi, the plaintiff, and Bira (defendant 1) are the grandsons of Narayan. Debahari (defendant 2), Niranjan (defendant 3), Chitrasen (defendant 4) and Basanta (defendant 5) are the descendants of Ganga. Kamaraju (defendant 6) Laxman (defendant 7), Rajan (defendant 8), Arjuna (defendant 9), Nakula (defendant 10) and Sahadeb (defendant 11) are the descendants of Jagannath. Tarini (defendant 12), Tribeni (defendant 13) and Kalu (defendant 14) are the descendants of Raghu Nayak. Partition was sought in respect of three plots--Survey Nos. 56 and 201 under Patta No. 23 and Survey No. 64 under Patta No. 762,...
Tag this Judgment!Hundari Bewa Vs. Keluni Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori37; 56(1983)CLT400
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. Can an admission made by a party in pleadings be withdrawn by amendment ?--this is the short question that arises for consideration in this revision. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 brought an action for partition and sought relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act. She alleged that Banamali, her father, and Anam were brothers and their residential house and homesteads had not been divided. The husband of the petitioner (defendant No. 2), a stranger to the family, purchased the residential house and homestead from Guluri, the daughter of Anam. This was stated to be the cause of action for the suit. 3. The petitioner, widow of the vendee, alleged that there was a partition in the year 1953 and Anam, the father of the vendor, passed away in 1955. 4. During trial the plaintiff proved a sale deed dt. 28-5-1953 executed by Guluri, the daughter of Anam, in favour of Banamali. The said sale deed disclosed that by 28-5-1953 Anam was dead. 5. The petitioner then filed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT283; 1984(I)OLR4
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Tracer on 13-6-1956 in the Electricity Department of Government of Orissa and his services were placed under the Balasore Electrical Division. According to the petitioner, from the date of appointment he became a civil servant and the provisions of Orissa Service Code (for short 'the Code') were applicable to him. Orissa State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') was constituted on. 1-3-1961 and the petitioner became an employee under the Board. He was promoted to the post of Draftsman and joined the post on 3-8-1961. Since then he was working in the same post till 18-7-1977, the date on which he was forced to retire from service on completion of his 58th years of age. The petitioner claims that even though his services were placed under the Board, by virtue of Irrigation and Power Department Resolution dated 19-10-1965 (Annexure-2) he was to be treated as a Government servant for all purposes. His services were illegally termin...
Tag this Judgment!Kantaru Sahu and ors. Vs. Dharma Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ori259; 56(1983)CLT152
P.C. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. in a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and damages. 2. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is that he purchased Ac. 0.24 cents of land in Survey No. 169 from one Dasa Naik and Ac. 0.26 cents of land in Survey No. 254 from one Ulla Sahu and others under two separate registered sale deeds dated 19-10-65 and 9-5-69, respectively Exts. 2 and 3. The plaintiff has alleged that after purchasing the said land he was in peaceful possession thereof till the month of May, 1970 when the defendants encroached upon different portions of these lands by removing the intervening ridges. According to him, defendant 1 has encroached upon Ac. 0.04 cents of land from the south-east portion of Survey No. 169 and defendant 2 has encroached upon Ac. 0.02 cents from the north of the said plot and defendants 2 and 3 together have encroached upon Ac. 0.02 cents of l...
Tag this Judgment!Brajabandhu Biswal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT163; 1984(I)OLR9
B.K. Behera, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. This application in revision has been made against an order passed under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code'), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, against the petitioners who were the two sureties for the appellant in a criminal appeal which was dismissed. The Petitioners did not produce the appellant, as directed by the Court. Under section 449 of the Code, any order passed under section 446 of the Code is appealable. Section 401(4) of the Code provides that where under this Code, an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The revision, therefore, is not maintainable in law. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they will prefer an appeal against the impugned order.2. The revision fails and is dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »