Orissa Court April 2007 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.
Shri Purna Chandra Acharya and Two ors. Vs. Commissioner of Consolidat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT253; 2007(I)OLR726
M.M. Das, J.1. The anguish and sentiments expressed by this Court time and again coupled with a command to appoint officers having legal background and well-versed or trained in law to handle proceedings under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') not only appears to have not been taken note of but also appears to have been brushed aside by the authorities of the State. For the above reasons, this Court is being flooded with petitions seeking exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality/perversity and un-tenability of the orders passed by the authorities even belonging to the highest hierarchy under the Act.2. This is a petition where the petitioners have called in question the order dated 27.8.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in R.C. No. 1075 of 1991 annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.3. The petitioner's case is th...
Krushna Chandra Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(I)OLR698
ORDER1. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that though he is entitled to get the benefit of Time Bound Advancement Scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1985, the same has not been given to him.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 in this writ application.4. Though various grounds were taken in this writ application, the main argument of the learned Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department is that since the petitioner has already retired from service on 30.3.1988, he cannot be granted the benefit of Time Bound Advancement Scale of pay as per the resolution of the Government in Education & Youth Service Department dated 22.7.1989 vide Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit. Our attention is drawn to the order dated 6.2.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5658 of 2005 Natabara Patra v. State of Orissa and Ors. in which such sta...
Kumari Jasoda Behera Vs. the State Represented Through Its Secretary, ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT697; 2007(I)OLR816
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioner on being transferred and directed to join in Padampeta Anganwadi Centre after completion of her training on being appointed as such, in Madhuruchua, has preferred this Writ Petition.2. During pendency of the Writ Petition, since the Opp. Party No. 3 being the Project Officer issued the letter under Annexure 4 intimating the Petitioner that the Collector has been pleased to disengage her from the post of Anganwadi Worker of Madhuruchua Centre of Ganjam I.C.D.S. Project with immediate effect for disobedience of the order of the authority, she sought for amendment of the Writ Petition. The said amendment being allowed, the Petitioner has now prayed for quashing the order under Annexure-2 which was initially issued to the Petitioner intimating her that she is appointed at Padampeta Anganwadi Centre after she completed her training and the Annexure-4 under which she has been intimated that she is disengaged from the post of Anganwadi Worker.3. The facts reveal ...
Nilasaila Nayak Vs. Authorized Officer-cum-assistant Conservator of Fo ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT546; 2007(1)OLR821
M.M. Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.4.2006 under Annexure-1 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2004 by the learned District Judge, Balasore.2. Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2004 was filed by the writ petitioner against the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator Forests, Udala under the Orissa Forest Act in O.R. Case No. 216-N of 1999-2000. As the said appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.3. While considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the writ petitioner-appellant, the learned District Judge by the impugned order held that the writ petitioner-appellant has deliberately delayed in filing the appeal and, therefore, refused to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.4. Mr. B.P. Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits t...
Sri Jagdish Chandra Kanungo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT120
M.M. Das, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by an ex-employee of the Orissa Lalitkala Academy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Academy') claiming payment of pension and other terminal benefits under the Orissa Academies Employees Provident Funds and Terminal Benefits Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994 Rules').2. The case of the Petitioner is that he first joined in service in the Directorate of Health Services under the Government of Orissa as an Artist in the year, 1962. While working thus, he applied for the post of Gallary Supervisor in the Academy and on being selected, he was relieved from the Government service and joined as Gallery Supervisor on 30.9.1965. The scale of pay of the Petitioner was revised as per the letter of the Government of Orissa, Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department dated 18.2.1974 read with its letter dated 21.5.1974. The post of Gallery Supervisor was upgraded to that of Assistant Secretary in a higher scale which was admissible to the...
Madras Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST187(Orissa)
1. Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Revenue.2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and has been granted a TIN number, challenges the order of assessment dated January 31, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Ward-E-Opposite Party No. 2 under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide annexure 2 on the following grounds:(1) That in the present case there being no self-assessment being validly made by the 'assessing authority' under Section 39 of the OVAT Act read with Rule 48 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules including scrutiny of return which is mandatory to be done by the assessing authority under Section 38, there is no self-assessment under Section 39 in the eye of law. Thus, in absence of valid self-assessment in accordance with the provisions of the OVAT Act, invocation of power of reassessment under Section 43 is ex facie i...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through the General Manager, Central ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT710
B.P. Das, J.1. All these Writ Petitions involve common question of law. They were, therefore, with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this Judgment.2. The common question of law that arises for determination is whether levy of entry tax under the provisions of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and the Rules made thereunder on different goods brought by the Union of India into the local areas of the State of Orissa is legal and valid?3. The Union of India represented by different authorities of the Indian Railway have filed these Writ Petitions. The contentions of the Petitioners are that (i) the Railway is not liable to pay any entry tax on the goods/properties brought by the Railway into the local areas of the State as the Railway Administration is entitled to exemption on the properties of the Union from the State taxation under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India; (ii) the State Legislature has no legislative competence t...
Dr. Deepak Kumar Singh Son of Sri Giridhari Singh, Presently Working i ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori109; 103(2007)CLT724; 2007(I)OLR750
ORDER1. Heard further argument from the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in each of the Writ Petitions and also reply submitted by Learned Advocate General on behalf of the State, reply by Mr. R.C. Mohanty Learned Counsel on behalf of the Medical Council of India, reply by Mr. Rabi Narayan Acharya, Learned advocate on behalf of the Post-Graduate (Medical) Selection Committee and argument by Sri Rajat Kumar Rath, Learned Senior Advocate representing the interest of the interveners and reply from Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, and all the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following manner.2. On consent of the parties, analogous hearing of all the cases is made, because the dispute is relating to different norms fixed by the Government in the Prospectus in respect of the admission to the Post-Graduate (Medical) Course and this common Judgment shall abide the result in all the cases.3. Petitioner, in W.P.(C) No. 978 of 2007, is working under Swami Bibekananda Nationa...
Swarnaprava Pattnaik @ Das Vs. Dibakar Satapathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR784
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack, in T.S. No. 121 of 1970/1417 75) as long back as in the year 1979 is sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 35/1979. In the said Execution Case a petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 44/2006. Among other grounds the main contention of the petitioner is that the land is a part of the subject matter of the decree and the same being unidentified, the decree cannot be executed. It appears that the decree passed in T.S. No. 141/1975 came before this Court in S.A. No. 84/1993. This Court has confirmed that decree holding as follows:The learned Counsel for the appellants first contended that the property was not identifiable and, therefore, no decree could be passed in respect of the property, which is not identifiable. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants relates to the 3rd substantial q...
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Bira Chhatar and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR91
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lanjigarh Road, Junagarh Rail Link Project, Bhawanipatna (hereinafter called 'LAO') against the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No. 54 of 2001 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, 'the Act').2. On the basis of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, Ac.0.33 decimals of land under holding No 45 and Plot No. 93 of mouza Gobardhanpur in the district of Kalahandi belonging to the claimant respondent No. 1 was acquired for construction of Lanjigarh Road- Junagarh Rail Link Project, as per Government Notification No. 45478 dated 19.9.1997 and declaration No. 50352 dated 22.9.1998. After conducting necessary inquiry the appellant awarded a compensation of Rs. 6871/- in favour of the claimant (respondent No. 1) who received that amount under protest claiming higher compensation. On the prayer of the claimant the matter was re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »