Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori114
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. These two petitions are heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact, and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. O. J. C. 81 of 1955 was tiled by 41 petitioners on 24-2-1955, and O. J. C. 152 of 1955 was filed by 48 petitioners on 2-5-55. The petitioners in both the applications are residents of village Harinikuli, Chaumukha, Dagara, Nagudi, Saranjapur, Naighati Pakundi, Jamukunda, Manikisimulia, Jugadihand Badasaha in the district of Balasore bordering on the western flank of the river Subarnarekha at its lowest reach before it falls into the Bay of Bengal. These applications are filed under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party, the State of Orissa, to refrain from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings as the notification issued by the Government under Section 4, read with Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001ACJ2137; AIR1999Ori137
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Shi had filed the suit claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- on the allegation that her son expired due to electric shock as he came in contact with a live wire hanging from the pole. It was claimedthat the accident took place due to negligence of the defendants.2. The Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board, and the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Rairangpur, who had been arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 filed one written statement denying the allegations relating to negligence on the part of the defendants. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and not maintainable as notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, had not been issued. The State of Orissa and Collector, Mayurbhanj, who had been impleaded as defendants 1 and 4 did not file any written statement.3. The trial Court found that there was negligence on the part of the defendants. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1982Ori57
B.N. Misra, J.1. This is the first suit filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Reena Padhi, widow of the late Rabindranath Padhi, is plaintiff No. 1 Rinku plaintiff No. 2 and Rajat plaintiff No. 3 are respectively the minor daughter and son of plaintiff No. 1 and the late Rabindranath Padhi. Minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are represented in the suit by their mother plaintiff No. 1 who has filed an affidavit that her interest is not adverse to that of her minor daughter and son. The owners and parties interested in the ship 'Jagdhir' are described as defendant No. 1 and Messrs Great Eastern Shipping Company, Limited having their registered office at Mercantile Bank Building, 60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay are defendant No. 2. In the plaint both 'action in rem' and 'action in personam' are combined and pleaded against the defendants. However, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted to the Court that for the present he was not pressing for an action in rem. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.2065 of 2010, 7303 of 2011, 27845 of 2011, 11738 of 2009, 15988 of 2009 & W.A. No.211 of 2012 _______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------(In W.P.(C) No.2065 of 2010) Narayan Sahoo Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha and Ors. Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s.Sachidananda Sahoo & P.R.Bhuyan For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Advocate General (For O.P.Nos.1 to12) : Mr.Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Advocate M/s. S.K.Padhi (Sr. Advocate), M.Padhi, A.Das, B.Panigrahi & S.B.Dash, (For opposite party Nos.13 &14) : Mr.J.Pattnaik, Sr. Advocate M/s.B.Mohanty, T.Pattnaik, S.Pattnaik, A.Pattnaik, B.S.Rayaguru (For opposite party No.16) : None (For opposite party Nos.15 &17) (In W.P.(C) No.7303 of 2011) Narendra Ku. Mohapatra & Ors. -VersusChief Secretary & Chief Development Commissioner and Ors. Petitioners Opp. Parties 2 For Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1966Ori124
Ahmad, C.J. 1. The parties to all these six applications are the same; they arise out of substantially the same facts, and involve common Questions of law; therefore, they have all been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The rule in all these case was obtained by the common petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a common order dated 11-10-1963 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in proceedings arising out of 6 Public Demands Recovery cases numbered as Certificate Misc. Cases Nos. 1207 of 1950-51, 12 of 1951-52, 3991 of 1951-52, 154 of 1953-54, 2204 of 1952-53 and 175 of 1963-64. By that order, the Member, Board of Revenue held that-'Certificate under Section 46(2) was sent to the Collector. From then it becomes a due payable to the Collector. As far as the certificate officer is concerned, he treats it as an arre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1970Ori233
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who is the recorded tenant of plot No. 78 of khata No. 107 in mouza Bisinabar, Cuttack Town. Plots Nos. 149, 150, 151 and 153 within the said mouza are homestead plots located in the neighbourhood of the petitioner's land, but plot No. 78 intercepts these plots from the Municipal road. A sketch map is on record which shows the location of these plots at the spot. Plot No. 153 located nearabout is a big tank whose embankment was providing a circuitous approach from another municipal road to these plots from a different side.The owners of these homestead plots who are quite a number of people approached the municipal authorities of Cuttack for construction of a road to link up these plots with the nearby municipal road and thereby provide a convenient outlet to the inhabitants of this area. The Municipal authorities decided that such a road in the interests of the inhabitants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori103
S. Barman, J. 1. The defendants are appellants from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff- respondent against the defendants-appellants to the extent of Rs. 8,902/6/-, finding them jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff-respondent for the said amount, suffered by the plaintiff-respondent, as loss,2. The relevant facts for the present purpose are shortly these: The plaintiff-respondent was a timber mereuant, carrying on business at Sambalpur since the year 1931. The plaintiff-respondent had stacked large quantities of timber on land belonging to the Bengal Nagpur Railway Administration (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-Railway) adjoining Sambalpur Railway Station, mostly for the purpose of supplying the same to the war Board. During the active prosecution of the Great War the plaintiff-respondent was constantly supplying timber which used to be loaded into waguns at Sambalpur Railway Station. Due to paucity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1984CriLJ1402
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application for issue of writ of habeas corpus directing release of the detenu Tulukishore Bastia who had been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.The order of detention dt. 23.2.1984 (Annexure-1) was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack (Opposite Party No. 2) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Act, on being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to order his detention. On 25.2.1984, the grounds of detention (Annexure-3) were served on the detenu. The grounds which are in Oriya language contained two incidents which translated into English read as follows:(1) On 3.2.84 night at about 11.45. P.M. your brother Balu Bastia after forcibly locking up the shop of Ajaya Behera situated on Medical Road in Mangalabag area, asked the nearby...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1994Ori191
Hansaria, C.J. 1. Chilka. A dream land for the poets and creative artists is now in throes of trouble, leading even to 'Chilka Bachao' movement taken up by eminent persons of the State. This is because Chilka has become a 'stormy island', as a news headlined in Hindustan Times of 13-9-1993 says, and because Chilka is 'getting choked', as flashed in another news of Hindustan Times dated 26-9-1993. The net result is that Chilka, which is the largest inland brackish water-body of its kind in Asia and which used to span before eyes like a dream and offer plenty of opportunities to enjoy and rejuvenate our soul, has become an eye sore because of havocs being played by mafias who have become the real monarchs of Chilka. All this is due to 'prawn-dollar' disaser developing around Chilka, as would be seen from what is being noted later. 2. How can in such a situation Chilka, dear Chilka, provide livelihood to about one and half lakhs of people (both fishermen and non-fishermen) living in and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
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!