Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-16-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR424
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the accused in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1998 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Khurda at Bhubaneswar (in short, ' A.S.J.') with the following prayer.'PRAYER'It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Revision application, issue notice to the opp. party, call for the Records of S.T, Case No. 5/1998-I from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda Camp at Bhubaneswar and after hearing the Parties set aside the order dated 29.7.1998 passed by the said Court directing framing of the charge.'Thus this revision has been directed challenging the order dated 29.7.1998 passed by the A.S.J., (the impugned order).2. A brief sketch of the facts and relevant circumstances and litigations are noted herewith for the sake of reference.The informant-prosecutrix Smt. Anjana Mishra lodged a written complaint against her husband Sri Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-23-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR610
R.K. Patra, J.1. In the aforesaid three applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 17.10.1988 of the Revenue Officer passed in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988 at Annexure-3 (partly modified by the appellate order dated 26.2.1991 at Annexure-2 and the revisional order dated 5.10.1991 at (Annexure-1) determining ceiling surplus land at the hands of Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992).As the facts and the law involved in all the cases are one and the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Suo motu ceiling case No. 1 of 1988 was initiated against Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992) on the allegation that she was in possession of Ac. 24.30 decimals of land which was in excess of the ceiling prescribed under law. The Revenue Officer, Bhadrak accordingly issued draft statement to her showing a surplus land of 9.89 standard acres at her hands and she w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-31-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR495
A. Pasayat, J.1. Order passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa (in short, 'the Commissioner') directing correction of settlement records in terms of the finally published record-of-rights (in short, 'ROR') till a competent Court corrects the entry, is the subject-matter of challenge in this application. The Tahasildar was directed to correct the records accordingly, Prayer of Chema Mohanty, opp. party No. 3 in that regard was accepted.2. The vital point involved is whether the Tahasildar in exercise of power conferred under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (in short, 'the Rules') framed under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (in short, 'the Act') can change or alter an entry in the finally published ROR in a Mutation Proceeding, for any event which occurred prior to the date of final publication of the ROR. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue (vide Annexure-5) to contend that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-31-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR360
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's election as a Councillor of Ward No. 28 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (in short, the 'Corporation) having been declared null and void by the learned District Judge, Khurda (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in terms of Section 21 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short, the Act'),on the basis of an application under Section 19 of the Act, this writ application has been filed.2. Factual position as presented by the parties essentially is as follows : Both petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were contestants for the post of Councillor of Ward No. 28 in the election of the Corporation. Opp. party Nos. 2 to 6 were also candidates. Petitioner was declared elected by the Election Officer (opposite party No. 2) as she secured highest number of valid ballots. Her election was challenged by opposite party No. 1 by filing an election petition solely on the ground-that she was eligible to contest by filing nomination as she was a permanent inhabit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-23-1998
Reported in : 86(1998)CLT114; 1998(II)OLR136
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. The background facts, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows :The petitioner purchased a plot of land in the year 1993 near the residential office of the Collector, Jharsuguda on the State Highway and after approval of plan and after obtaining proper permission from the Sambalpur Regional Improvement Trust, she constructed a double storeyed house. When the house was under construction, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the opposite parties started construction of 132 KV Tower line for transmission of electric energy from Brajarajnagar across the State Highway to Cement Factory of L & T situated at Arda. She raised objection, and it was found that necessary permission as required under law was not taken. Construction was stopped for some time. Thereafter, all on a sudden, construction of the tower started. Line from Kantapalli to the cement factory in one side of the tower was taken. The said line is not going directly over the house of the petitioner, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-12-1998
Reported in : 85(1998)CLT240
ORDERPradipta Ray, J.1. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 12/80-I in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri against the opp. parlies. The suit was filed on March 18, 1980 and was valued at Rs. 7,7 00/-. In the said suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 103 of 1981. By judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 the trial Court allowed the said application in part and restrained the opp. parties from receiving dry bhog from the pilgrims and other devotees on the pretext of offering the same to the deities. The trial Court, however, refused to prohibit payment of Dakshina to the opp. parties. Against the said interim order present opp. parties I and 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 70/98 of 1985/86 in the Court of District Judge, Puri. By judgment and order dated November 4, 1994 Second Additional District Judge, Puri passed the following order :'The defendants 1 to 4(a) in T. S. 12/80...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-14-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR43
A. Pasayat, J.1. Present writ application involves an interesting question of law, and in fact this application has been entertained only to adjudicate the question whether under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act/ 1965 (in short, the 'Act') the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has power to allow amendment to the pleadings.2. In view of the limited nature of legal controversy factual details are to be indicated in brief.Petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch of Badasuara Grama Panchayat. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were contestants in the said election on 16.1.1997. An election dispute has been raised under the Act by opposite party No. 3 which has been numbered as Election Dispute Misc. Case No. 7 of 1997, and the same is pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur. During pendency of the election dispute, an application styled as one under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'Code') was filed by opposite party No.3. Amendment sought...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-04-1998
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR181
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Short but substantial question which has been raised in this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') is as to whether a caste not notified as Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order and Notification under Article 341 of the Constitution can be regarded as Scheduled Caste being described in that manner in the District Gazetteer.2. Relevant facts may be indicated for reference. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in T.R. No. 25/28 of 96-95 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda. In that case cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506/34, IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act') has been taken. On 5.11.1996 petitioner filed an application challenging the order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that the informant being a 'Khatia' by caste and not being 'K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-10-1998
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR295
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing decision in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the plaint 'A' schedule property and for a direction to correct the Tenant's Ledger in favour of the plaintiff.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is as follows.One Mandar Dehury had sold Ac. 0.08 decimals of land in Khata No. 28 in mouza Dhananjayapur including the disputed land by registered sale deed dated 27.10.1941 to the plaintiff and delivered possession. The plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the disputed 'A' schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered that the disputed land had been recorded in the name of Kapileswar Mahadev, and the ex-proprietor of Sukinda had submitted the Tenancy Ledger in the name of the aforesaid deity. The plaintiff enquired from the Raja of Sukinda who was the ex-proprietor and the latter had executed a registered Nadabi Patra on 23.5.1978 in respect of 'A' schedule property in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-14-1998
Reported in : AIR1999Ori15
Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner and some of the intervenors, who wanted to be heard in the matter, have alleged that the people, flora and fauna are directly and adversely affected by various activities which are going on in and around the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, and have prayed for stoppage of project to construct a fish landing centre at Talchua. They express concern that these activities would have adverse effect on the Bhitarkanika Ecosystem including the. Olive Ridley sea turtile habitat. Some of the opposite parties have characterised the petition as a publicity seeking gimmick. They have asserted that the petitioner, and large number of such so-called environment lovers are in reality perpetrating fraud on the judicial system by presenting 'publicity interest litigation' in the garb of public interest litigation. These persons are busy bees, publicity hungry and make wild, baseless allegations and present a distorted version far fetched from reality. They assert that a large ...
Tag this Judgment!