Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR294
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT567
ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Writ Petition has been filed by M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (in short 'PPL') with a prayer for payment of interest pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2774 of 2001.3. The material facts of the case are as follows: An appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the Collector (Appeal), Kolkata against the Order Dated 2.12.1992 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Paradeep. By the said order, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs finalized the provisional assessment by confirming the duty demand of Rs. 10.27 Crores under Heading No. 8428.39. The said appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by Collector (Appeals) and against the same, the Petitioner filed appeal along with an application under Section 129E of the Customs Act for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of duty before the Customs, Excise & (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, for short referred to as 'CEGAT'). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR96
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Narasinghpur in 2 I.C.C. No. 86 of 2004 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302, 201, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of Nidhiguda Gram Panchayat and petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. On 21.6.2003 opposite party No. 2 lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge of Narasinghpur Police Station alleging therein that on 26.3.2003 at about 8 P.M. petitioner No. 2 called the deceased Pabitra Kumar Sahoo (husband of the informant) on the plea that his father, petitioner No. 1, was calling him for some work. The deceased accompanied with petitioner No. 2 but never returned till late in the night and on the next day his dead body was found floating in a well near Balanath temple. It is the case of the informant that the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR205
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1989 setting aside the judgment and order dated 2.5.1989 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No. 35/16 of 1987/88 wherein he convicted the accused (respondent) for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months more.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that accused is a distant relative of the alleged victim (P.W.1) and as such he had visiting term with the family members of the victim. It is alleged that some time in the month of Jyestha of the year 1986, while the victim, a girl of less than 16 years was alone in her study room, accused came there and without her consent and against her will squeezed her breasts and forcibly lifted her to a room and comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT101
ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel for the State, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 6 and the Writ Petition is disposed of on consent of the parties.2. The dispute starts with initiation of Lease Case No. 71/ 79 of 1979 in Binjharpur Tahasil of district Jajpur. Petitioner applied for settlement of Ac.0.30 decimals of land in her favour from Plot No. 2421 under Khata No. 66 in Mouza Ratalanga with the assertion that she has encroached that area and in possession of that land. On 02.02.1980 Learned Tahsildar, Binjharpur passed order for settlement of Ac.0.04 decimals of land in her favour. Petitioner preferred Encroachment Appeal Case No. 6 of 1981 before the Sub-Collector, Jajpur. On 30.7.1992 Learned Sub-Collector set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed for fresh enquiry with respect to the remaining area while affirming the order of settlement of Ac.0.04 decimals of land. Petitioner challenged that order before the Revisional Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT53; 2008(1)OLR78
ORDER1. Heard.The order, Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal on 30.10.20.00 in Grievance Cell is under challenge. That order reads as follows:This is part up today. Both parties present. Heard them. It is contained by the Petitioner that the disputed land in question has been settled in the Bebondobasti case No. 26/90 in the name of the Petitioner and Patta has been issued in her favour by the Tahasildar. It is stated by that the O.P. is creating disturbance in her possession from the case land O.P. is present and sated that he had got an area of 0.108 bearing plot No. 5618 under Khata No. 2600 of village Dhenkanal town through a gift deed No. 48/Dt.30/ 12/1965 and in peaceful.It is seen that the entire case land has been settled by the O.E.A. Collector in the Bebandobasti case No. 26/90 in favour of the Petitioner and the Hal R.O.R. has been corrected in her favour.The O. P. has not taken any step till date to establish his title over the case land. The land in question was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT377; 2008(I)OLR87
Sanju Panda, J.1. Debendranath Kar had filed this writ petition alleging that though he is entitled for a plot, the opposite parties are not allotting the same in his favour in exchange of his plot acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, Debendranath died and thereafter his legal representative have been substituted in his place.2. The case of the petitioner-late Debendranath Kar, in brief, is that the petitioner had purchased a land measuring an area of Ac. 0.60 dec. (11/2 gunths) out of plot No. 676 under Khata No. 102 in Mouza Gandarpur. The said plot was acquired in a Land Acquisition Proceeding in the year 1974 for Sikharpur Housing Scheme. The petitioner immediately made an application to exclude his plot from acquisition in order to enable him to retain the same to construct his small house according to the specifications of the Town Planning Authority under Section 79 of the Orissa Town Planning & Improvement Trust Act, 1956 (in short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR335
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jeypore in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Munsif, Jeypore in Title suit No. 24 of 1980.2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the above noted suit with a pleading that the property described in the Schedule of the plaint is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendant namely Disarl Damdu. This Disari Dambu had no male issue, but had only a daughter, defendant No. 1. So he adopted plaintiff No. 3 as his son. The defendant was married and was living in her husband's village for last 40 years but after the death of Disari Dambu she claimed right, title over the suit property of Disari Dambu as the legal heir and also basing on a gift deed allegedly executed by the said Disari Dambu. Since there was a scramble for possession a 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated in the Court of Executive Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT277
Sanju Panda, J.1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the Order Dated 30.1.2.1996 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack in O.E.A. Case No. 55 of 1968-69 whereby the Additional Tahasildar has refused to accept the Petitioner as a tenant under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Petitioner got a lease from the then intermediary Bhagaban Das in the year 1944 in respect of the disputed land Ac.9.00 under. Mouza Bidyadharpur. The description of the land as revealed from the records is as under:Sabik Khata No. 1Sabik Plot No. 34, Area-Ac. 9.00Corresponding to Hal Khata No. 333Hal Plot No. 92, Area - Ac.9.30 decimalsKisam Gramya Jungle The Petitioner claims that he got the lease by way of Hatapatta and the status of this land was Anabadi (Niji Chasa) as per the Record-of-Right of the year 1932. The disputed land vested in the State on 21.5.1960 and as per the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT50; 2008(1)OLR65
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. The Petitioner, response to the notification dated 10.04.2006 (Annexure-1), had applied for her engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Gauriprasad Anganwadi Centre under Chandbali I.C.D.S. Project in the District of Bhadrak. The above said advertisement was made while the old guidelines, with regard to engagement of Anganwadi worker, was in vogue.2. It is submitted that after submission of applications, the process of selection commenced and while the same was almost at the stage of completion, another 'guidelines with regard to engagement of Anganwadi Worker' was issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 in supersession of earlier guidelines. There was no clause in the new guidelines stipulating anything as to whether the same would have prospective on retrospective effect. But in the forwarding letter of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary it has been mentioned that:Wherever the Anganwadi Workers have not been selected and engaged as per the earlier guidelines, the...
Tag this Judgment!