SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Ori) 116

P.C.MISRA, G.B.PATTANAIK
SOMNATH SIPKA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.A.RAO, C.V.MURTHY, P.K.MISHRA

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, has impugned in this writ petition the orders of the Certificate Officer, the Additional District Magistrate exercising the appellate power and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, exercising revisional power, annexed as Annexures 1,6 and 10 respectively to the writ petition in respect of a certificate proceeding started against the petitioner.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to briefly state the facts. Petitioner had taken some money as agricultural loan and the amount of loan was recoverable as land revenue in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. Certificate proceedings were instituted for realisation of the amount due on the petitioner and as required under the provisions of S. 6 of the said Act, due notice was issued and served on the petitioner. But notwithstanding due service of notice, petitioner did not take any steps nor file any petition denying his liability. Thereafter the properties of the petitioner were attached and sale proclamation was issued for sale of the petitioner's holdi



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top