Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Purusottam Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 3) |
| 3. further analysis on jurisdiction issues (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. justification for writ action (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion and orders of the court (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in SRP No.2248 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4), the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) remanded SRP No.2248 of 2014 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the case by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. For which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the Annexure-4.
3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties (State).
4. Law on this aspect ha
The Additional Commissioner cannot delegate his revisional powers to the Tahasildar, violating statutory provisions under the OSS Act, 1958.
The High Court's orders are binding on subordinate authorities, and failure to follow such orders constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority.
The main legal point established is the limitation of the Tahasildar's power in correcting the R.O.R. and map, and the Commissioner's authority to delegate jurisdiction, as well as the need for a lib....
A Tahasildar is not required to consult the Collector for correcting the R.o.R as per law, and higher authorities may not set aside such orders without valid reasons.
The court ruled that a consolidation authority must adjudicate on merits and cannot delegate responsibilities or issue remands, ensuring statutory powers are exercised properly.
The Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel the final R.o.R after seven years, as the opposing party did not pursue the required legal remedies under the OS&S Act.
Decision without providing a party access to the material relied on violates principles of natural justice, warranting quashing of the order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
