Orissa Court July 2006 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.
Z. Engineers Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Bhubaneswar Development Authori ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT441; 2006(II)OLR277
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called 'B.D.A.'). By the said order the Planning Member of B.D.A. informed one Tapan Kumar Mohanty, who claims to be the Managing Director of M/s. Z. Engineers Construction (P) Ltd., the petitioner-company that its application filed on 19.10.2005 for construction of a residential/commercial S+8 storied building cannot be considered for certain reason mentioned in the said order. The reasons for non-consideration of the petitioner's application is that the plot is located in the green belt/Commercial zone as per the CD.P. of Bhubaneswar. The other reasons is that the building plan is not in conformity with Rule 70(8) of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (Planning & Building Standards) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 2001').2. The material facts of the case are that for construction of a S+...
Madasi Ramu @ M. Ramu Vs. Madasi Krishna Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori12; 2006(II)OLR448
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree in T.A. No. 11 of 1985 (T.A. No. 34 of 1984-GDC) passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Berhampur confirming the judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsif-cum-S.D.J.M., Berhampur passed in T.S. No. 76 of 1979.2. The plaintiff-appellant and defendants-respondents, who are brothers effected partition of their dwelling house in a family settlement dated 31.7.1978 wherein the house was divided into four shares, the front half facing the main road fell to the share of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and rear portion fell to the share of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. There is a courtyard in between the front and rear block. According to the appellant, this Court-yard was kept joint for common use of the brothers and accordingly, the families, residing in the front block used to go to the latrine which situates on the north-west corner of the premises through that court-yard. He al...
Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality Vs. Manasi Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT602
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.8.1988 passed by the J.M.S.C., Berhampur in 3(a) C.C. No. 273 of 1986 (T.R. No. 3170 of 1986).2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21.12.1985 during the visit of the Municipal Amin (P.W. 1), it was found that the accused-respondent was constructing a new house obstructing the public road. It is alleged that the accused-respondent was making the said construction without obtaining prior permission of the appellant. As such, she contravened Sections 264 and 266 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A prosecution report against the accused-respondent was filed before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur which registered as 3(a) C.C. No. 273 of 1986.3. The defence plea was one of stout denial.4. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution exam ined two witnesses and exhibited six documents. P.W. 1 is the Amin, and P.W. 2 is the Town Survey...
Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality Vs. Rama Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR493
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.07.1988 passed by the J.M.F.C., Berhampur in 3 (a) C.C.No. 191 of 1985 (T.R.No. 310 of 1987).2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 18.03.1985 it was found that the accused-respondent had constructed a new pucca building on the back side of her existing building without obtaining prior permission of the appellant. As such, the accused-respondent contravened Sections 264 and 266 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A prosecution report against the accused-respondent was filed before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur which was registered as 3 (a) C.C.No. 191 of 1985.3. The defence plea was one of stout denial.4. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined four witnesses and exhibited five documents. P.W.1 is the Amin, P.W.2 is the Surveyor, P.W.3 is a Peon and P.W.4 is the Tax Daroga of Berhampur Municipality. Defence examined...
Tarini Kanta Giri Vs. Bhajanananda Giri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR458
A.K. Parichha, J.1.This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Karanjia passed in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1985-l reversing the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Karanjia in Title Suit No. 12 of 1981-l.2. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the above noted suit asking for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, which he claims to have purchased from Respondent No. 4, who was defendant No. 3 in the suit. His specific pleading was that in a family partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendant No. 3 and that defendant sold the same to him by means of a registered sale deed Ext. 1 and delivered possession of the land, but defendant No. 5 created disturbance in his possession. The present appellant, who was defendant No. 5, contested that claim pleading inter alia that in the family partition the suit land fell to the share of respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit and that defendant No. 1 f...
Jayadeb SwaIn Vs. Santha Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori15; 2006(II)OLR286
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1982-1 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak has been assailed in this appeal.2. The present Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 183 of 1978-1 in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and other consequential reliefs in respect of the suit property. His case in brief was that one Anadi Ojha, father of defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and husband of defendant No. 3, purchased the suit land from out of joint family funds on 17.2.1947 through a registered sale deed (Ext.3); whereupon the said Anadi, his sons defendants 1 & 2 each earned 1/3 share in that property. On the death of Anadi his 1/3 share was succeeded by his heirs defendants 1 to 7. After death of Anadi defendant No. 1 being the eldest son became the Karta of joint family and managed the affairs of the family. In order to repay some joint family loan and maintain the family he sold the suit land to the p...
Central Ware Housing Corporation Vs. K. Dandasi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR316
B.P. Das, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur in E.P. No. 1 of 1995.2. The facts leading to this application, in short, are that present opposite parties 1 to 3 were owners in possession of Ac.1.70 and Ac.0.95 decimals of land appertaining to Survey Nos. 616/1 and 616/2 in Mouza Lanjipalli. By the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Extraordinary Gazette No. 1450 dated 3.11.1977, the aforesaid land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam for the purpose of construction of 'Food Grains Godown' on the requisition of the Superintendent, Central Ware Housing Corporation of India and treating the acquired land to be cultivable land, the Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 2.2.1978 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre and awarded a sum of Rs. 93,299.20 as compensation including 15% solatiu...
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-collector Vs. Parbati Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR488
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Kalahandi has preferred this Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) as per award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara in reference under Section 18 of the Act registered as M.J.C. No. 63 of 1992.2. There is no controversy on the fact that Ac. 1.22 decimals of land of the respondents was acquired under Notification No. 58070 dated 7.9.1988 for the purpose of Upper Jonk Irrigation canal and that the said land has been described as agricultural land as Bahalkharipani and Bernakhari lands together with solatium and interest. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,631.40 paise. Respondents accepted the same on protest and claimed for higher valuation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per dismissal on the ground that the acquired land is abating to densely populated locality of Rajpur-Nawapara which is a part of growing township of Sub-Divisional Headquarters o...
Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT692
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Accused in T.R. Case No. 113 of 1999 of the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has filed this application with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.6.2004 passed by the Learned Special Judge.2. To resolve the controversy in support of the aforesaid prayer, it is not necessary to go into the details of the facts save and except mentioning that while serving as an O.A.S., Class-I in the State Secretariat at Bhubaneswar, petitioner faced a house-search by the Vigilance Police on 17.3.1992 followed with the investigation, during which the investigating agency opined that petitioner was in possession of disproportionate movable assets to the tune of Rs. 5,36,252.46 (five lakh thirty six thousand two hundred and fifty two rupees and forty six paise) and immovable assets of Rs. 5,58,752.46 (five lakh fifty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty two rupees and forty six paise). During pendency of investigation, i.e., about fag end of the investigation, sanctio...
Sri. Basanta Kumar Dash Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT222; 2006(II)OLR243
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously having been preferred against common orders of the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Bargarh in O.L.R. Case (Ceiling Proceeding) No. 46 of 1981 and orders of the S.D.O.-cum-O.S.D. (L.R.), Bargarh in O.L.R. Application Nos. 32,35 and 36, all of 1988, and by the Addl. District Magistrate (L.R.), Sambalpur in O.L.R. Revision No. 22 of 1988 and, therefore, this common judgment shall abide the result in both the writ petitions.2. Ceiling Proceeding under Chapter-IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') was initiated against the holder of the land being the heirs and successors of Late Lokanath. In course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner provided the following genealogy and learned counsel for the State, after verification of the L.C.R., did not dispute to correctness of the same. Accordingly the genealogy is as follows:Late Lokanath (1964)____________________________________________________...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »