Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR21
R.K. Patra, J. 1. In this writ application, challenge is to the order dated 27-2-1991 (Annexure-1) of the Additional District Magistrate, Angul in OEA Appeal Case No. 18 of 1986 by which he has modified the order dated 1.2-8-1985 (Annexure-5) of the OEA Collector in OEA Case No. 932 of 1973 by excluding plot No. 72 measuring Ac. 5. 02 decimals (tank) and plot No. 181 measuring Ac. 1. 14 decimals (Bandha Adi) from being settled with the petitioners.2. Khata No. 9 admeasuring Ac. 28. 29 decimals in mouza Gangadharpur, P. S. Parjang in Kamakhyanagar Sub-Division was recorded jointly in the names of one Duttahari Mohapatra and others who were predecessors in interest of the petitioners under the status ''Panapik Lakhraj Bahel' in the revenue settlement of the year 1923-24, which vested in the State free from all incumbrances under Section 3-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide Revenue Department Notitication N-o. 29251 dated 2-5-1973. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT453; 1997(I)OLR328
A. Pasayat, J. 1.These two writ applications are directed against a common judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack (in short, the 'Tribunal') directing fresh consideration of applications seeking grant of temporary permits by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack (in short, 'STA').2. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. Each of the petitioners filed application for temporary permit on the inter-Stats route from Kakatpur to Calcutta in the year 1988. An agreement was entered into between the State of Orissa and State of West Bengal and on the basis of such agreement, two vehicles from each State were to be plied on the aforesaid route. As applications filed for temporary permits are not disposed of for a long time, this Court was moved. A direction was given to dispose of the application. it is to be noted that there were five applications. Accordingly, STA disposed of applications for grant of temporary permits by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 84(1997)CLT290; 1997CriLJ1902
C.R. Pal, J.1. The appellant assails the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1992 convicting and Sessions Case No. 114 of 1992 sentencing him under Section 376, IPC read with Section 511, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The case against the appellant, in brief, is that on 29-3-1991 at about noon while the victim was returning to her house on the jungle road from the work site of her son at Atersingh road after providing him with his meal the appellant caught hold of her and made her naked and forcibly performed sexual intercourse with her. The victim came to her house, but being apprehensive of mal-treatment by her husband for her involvement in such an affair she went away to her mother's house. On 11-4-1991 she was brought back by her husband when the victim narrated about the occurrence. Therefore, she lodged a written information at the Police Station.3. The case of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)1; 84(1997)CLT736; 1997CriLJ2973
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal appellant Dharani Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') calls in question legality of his conviction and imposition of sentence for offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur found him guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable Under Section 302, IPC and one year for the other offence.2. Accused faced trial for allegedly having committed murder of one Kuntala Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who happened to be sister of the accused. Law was set into motion by Sankar Be.hera (P.W. 1) who filed the First Information Report (Ext. 1) inter alia indicating that Madan Chhatria found dead body of the deceased at an isolated spot. On hearing this several persons ran to the spot, and FIR was lodged on 29-10-1990 at about 6 p. m. Investigation was handed over to the Circle Inspector by the Sub-Inspector of Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT440; 1997(I)OLR222
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Soundness of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities under the provisions of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act(in short, 'the Act') by Annexures 3,4 and 5 is called in question in the present writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner.After stating pleadings and contentions of counsel for both sides, it is held :5. From the analysis of the rival contentions it becomes beamingly clear that the sole controversy rests on the issue whether the order of settlement passed under the OEA Act would enure to the benefit of others if parties are governed by Mohammedan Law.6. Before we go to the different aspects of Mohammedan Law and the extension of benefit to a co-sharer we would like to ascertain whether there had been partition or the parties were in ' jointness. The Consolidation Officer in his order has observed as follows :'Opposite party Karim Khan states that the property is joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT545; 1997CriLJ1933; 1996(II)OLR669
Dipak Misra, J. 1. The question of maintainability of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), after disposal of the revision at the level of the Sessions Judge has arisen again like a mythical phoenix and that being the preliminary objection by Shri Debasis Panda, learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 it has to be dealt with before the petitioner is allowed to cross the threshold to advance his contentions in regard to the merits of the case.2. The preliminary objection of Shri Panda is that, challenging the order dated 26-7-1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrak, in, ICC Case No. 60 of 1993 whereby he refused to. entertain the application filed under Section 219 of the Code the accused persons had preferred Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1994 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, and having lost in the said revision, they are debarred to invoke the inherent Jurisdiction of this Court as the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1932
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. This revision at the instance of the complainant (petitioner herein) is filed challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salepur, dismissing Complaint Case No. 142 of 1992.2. The complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging inter alia that on 25-10-1992 at about 5.30 P.M. while he was returning from Nageshpur Bazar with some medicines, the accused persons wrongfully restrained him on the way and questioned as to why he deposed in the complaint case filed by one Rumakar Patra and so saying they assaulted him. Local Sarpanch being informed of the incident, wanted to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, but failed. Thereupon, the complainant moved the Court below by filing the complaint and put the law into motion.3. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint proceeded with enquiry as envisaged in Section 202, Cr.P.C. and on consideration of the evidence led in support of the accusation, dismissed the complaint o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1997Ori131
A. Pasayat, J.1. He who says what is mine is yours and what is yous is yours is a saint. He says, what is your is mine and what is mine is mine is a wicked man', says Babylanian Telmud (Aboth V). The principal characters involved in this unfortunate family dispute are brother and sister, giving a lie to the saying blood in thicker than water. Bone of controversy revolves round a building standing on Ac 0.64 decimals of land claimed to have been gifted by Sita Devi, mother of Bimelendu (plaintiff No. I), Sanjukta and Sakuntala (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and mother-in-law of Niharika (plaintiff No. 2) who are respondent No. 1, appellant, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively in this appeal.2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice. Suit property described in Schedule B of the plaint originally belonged to one Ganesh Chandra who executed a registered permanent lease deed dated 11-4-1944 in favour of aforesaid Sita Devi in respect of the same, along with other p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR484
S.N. Phukan, C. J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabarangpur, dated 29-1-1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1994. By the impugned order, the plaintiff-appellants' application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.2. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to amend the pleadings at the appellate stage to the effect that defendants 2 and 3 are not the sons of Gomudu Bhotra, but they are the sons of Somundh Bhotra, who is the son of Bansai Bhotra. The petition was dismissed on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce a new story regarding the parentage of defendants 2 and 3. The learned lower appellate Court also held that the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the other side.3. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Bhubaneswar Patel v. Janak Patel, AIR 1976 Orissa 216. In that case, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR506
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. Bench of this Court while hearing OJCs 3638 and 3668 of 1992 entertained doubt regarding correctness of the judgment dated. 5-11-1993 rendered in OJC No. 3883/92 (Hrushikesh Mohanty v. Managing Director, Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. and others) and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Subsequently, OJC No. 1152/95 was also heard along with the aforesaid cases. The order of reference in OJCs 3638 and 3668 of 1992, which is dated 2-5-1995, reads as follows :'Rule 20 of the Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1986, has been struck-down by a Bench of this Court in OJC No. 3883 of 1992 (Hrushikesh Mohanty v. Managing Director Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.) on the assumption that a probationer on expiry of 2 years must be deemed to have been confirmed in the post. While corning to the aforesaid conclusion. Rule 18 of the Rules has not been brought to the notice of the Court wh...
Tag this Judgment!