R.N.MISRA, B.K.RAY
RAGHUNATH MAHANTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THESE are twenty applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the instance of different landlords most of which are Deities impugning the provision contained in Section 4 (9) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) as ultra vires the Constitution and for a direction that the said provision cannot be effectively worked out until the manner by rules is prescribed. Other contentions have also been raised with which we shall deal in due course. As common questions have been raised and at the desire of the different counsel only one set of arguments has mainly been advanced on both sides, we propose to dispose of all the writ applications by a common judgment. It is not necessary to deal individually with the facts of each of the writ petitions. It is sufficient to indicate broadly the questions of law raised before us and the contentions from both sides relating to that. According to the petitioners Section 4 (9) of the Act cannot be given effect to on the following grounds:- (a) Under the Act, raiyats pay rent in cash, rent in kind and cash, and in kind only. There is no justification as to why provision should have been mad
REFERRED TO : Ramesh v. Gendalal
Jav Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
L.Jagannath v. The Authorised Officer Land Reforms, Madurai
Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v. K.I. Abraham
Ryots of Garabandho v.Zamindar of Parlakimedi
Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woollen and Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.