Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favor of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-02-2010
1. In this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the legality of order dated18.4.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhubaneswar in Civil Revision Nos.26 of 2001 (12 of 2002) by which order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.190 of 1984-I rejecting petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of written statement was confirmed. 2. Petitioners are legal heirs of defendant no.1 whereas opposite party nos.1 to 3 are legal heirs of the plaintiff and opposite party no.4 is the defendant no.2 in the suit. Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department has been impleaded as defendant no.3. 3. Defendant no.1 being the lessee of the Government in respect of the suit land entered into registered agreement for sale dated 6.1.1973 with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.4,800/-. As per the agreement defendant no.1 received advance of Rs.2,900/-, handed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-05-2010
1. In the present writ petition the petitioners herein claiming www 1 themselves to be the social workers and villagers of village Boden in the A District of Nuapada in the State of Orissa have prayed for quashing of i ' Notice No.248 dated 10.7.2010 issued by the Collector & Districtpetition and vacation of the interim orders in order to operate exclusive - privilege. I 2. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the _petitioners placed reliance Q. On the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarat Kumar Sahu 8:; another v. Collector, Cuttack and another, 73 (1992) CLT 834(para- 6) in order to support his contention that the "locality" as well as "local V area", needs to be declared in the public notice. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment would have no application V to the present case, since an amendment was made) on 29.03.2005 to li the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989, introducing Rule3Pi thereof. In (view of I such amendment to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-29-2010
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.15 of 1982 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short, "the Code") arising out of Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1982, an appeal under the Orissa Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, "the OPP Act").2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows: Opposite party no.1 as respondent no.2 in Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1981 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 10.9.1981 passed in the said appeal and prayed for hearing of the appeal as he would be highly prejudiced.From the record, it appears that the disputed land was acquired by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of quarters for the staff and officers of the High Court of Orissa. After due notification under Sections 6 and 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-20-2010
1. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Mayabarha in the district of Sonepur. Apart from the petitioner, there were three other candidates to contest the election to be the office of the Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. After declaration of the result of the election, the opp. party no. 2 filed an application under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur challenging the election of the petitioner on the main ground that he had more than two children born after the cut off date. The said election petition was registered as MJC No. 10 of 2007. The petitioner after appearing in the said election dispute has filed a show cause/written statement. In paragraph-4 of the written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation with regard to the dates of birth of his children stating the same to be incorrect and false. On 26.6.2010, the opp. party no. 2 (election petitioner) filed an alleged extract of the immunization regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-16-2010
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-03-2010
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 27.3.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O.No.33 of 2007 reversing the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division,) Dhenkanal, in Election Petition No.11 of 2007 and declaring the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch of Badalo Grama Panchayat as null and void and further declaring that a casual vacancy has been occurred in respect of the said office of Sarpanch and directing the concerned authority to take necessary steps to fill up the vacancy as per law.2. The petitioner and three others, namely, Alakamanjari Rout, Mamatamayee Sahu and Srimati Rout filed their respective nominations to contest for the office of Sarpanch of Badalo Gram Panchayat, which was scheduled to be held on 15.2.2007.On scrutiny of the nomination papers, all the four candidates were found suitable to contest for the election. Accordingly, they contested the election which was held on the scheduled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-15-2010
1. C.R. DASH, J. Section-9 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, as it stood before amendment by Orissa Entry Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005 (referred to as "Act" in short) provided a limitation of "three years" for reassessment of escaped turn over of a dealer. By the aforesaid amendment in question in the year 2005 Section-9 of the Act was substituted by Section-10, in which the provisions of Section-9 were retained, but the period of limitation of "three years" was substituted by a period of limitation of "five years". The short question that arises for determination in the present writ petition is, whether the jurisdiction invoked by the opposite party after coming into force of the amendment, has got to cover a period of limitation up to "five years" preceding next the date of issuance of the impugned notice or the limitation as prescribed in the amended provision is prospective in nature and it would apply only to reassessments onwards from the date of coming into force of the amendment?2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-23-2010
1. The petitioner, one of the tenderers, has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to finalize the tender and execute necessary deed of agreement for issuance of work order in its favour in respect of Package Nos. 2 and 4 (Kansabansa RD 31.00 KM to 21.00 KM and Kansabansa 10.00 KM to 0.00 KM) respectively and for a declaration that in the event the opposite parties have executed agreement with any disqualified bidder, the same may be deemed to be illegal, inoperative and untenable with a further prayer to quash the same in respect of the aforesaid package nos. 2 and 4 urging various facts and legal contentions.2. After the filing of this writ petition, vide order dated 18.1.2010, the petitioner has impleaded opposite party nos.6 and 7 -2- in whose favour the contract has been awarded in respect of the aforesaid items of civil work. 3. Facts in brief are stated as under:Opposite party no.4 by e procurement notice No.5/08-09 fi...
Tag this Judgment!