Orissa Court January 2004 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.
Sk. Abdul Fakir Vs. Charulata Kapandia and 3 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT400; 2004(I)OLR251
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels appearing for each of opposite parties 1 and 2 so also learned Standing Counsel and the writ petition stands disposed of in the following manner.2. Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application under Regulation 3-A of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (in short 'the Regulation') claiming that she is the owner of the property of Plot No. 28 in Mouza Bentakarpada measuring an area of Ac. 1.40 decimals on the basis of registered deed of sale executed on 19.3.1987 by the true owner i.e., the opposite party No. 2. Since her husband is serving outside the Mouza, she went and stayed with him and taking advantage of her absence the writ petitioner laid a false claim, initiated Mutation Case No. 634 of 1991 and got mutated in his favour an area of Ac. 1.15 decimals from that plot i.e., the Scheduled 'B' land and on that basis he is in illegal and unauthori...
Bishnu Charan Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Krushna Chandra Mallick and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT329
M. Papanna, J. 1. This appeal is brought by unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing reversing judgments and decrees of learned trial Judge in T. S. No. 99/80 and learned Sub-Judge, Jagatsinghpur in T.A. No. 1/87, respectively.2. Plaintiffs in the suit are appellants in the First Appeal and also herein. Likewise defendants are respondents in the First Appeal and also herein.3. Delineation of relevant facts of the case is given below for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal :Suit land is ancestral property of plaintiffs who have claimed to be in possession of the said property with some trees thereon adjacent to house of defendants who, taking advantage of this, take away fruits from the said trees which they cut. Defendants have also initiated O.L.R. Proceedings claiming tenancy right over the land in question. Plaintiffs being obliged, brought the suit for declaration of their right, title and confirmation of possession over the land and also permanent injunction against defendants who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›