Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARINDAM SINHA, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Shrebatsa Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim based on prior assurances (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. finality of court directions for allotment (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. state arguments based on policy and past cases (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. legal and moral obligation to veterans (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the need for compliance with court orders (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion ordering compliance with previous directives (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is communication dated 15th October, 2015, whereby the administration informed his client that the Government had been pleased to decide, due to non-availability of land, monetary grant in lieu of land will be given to landless Jawans and landless ex- service men, who have served in the forward areas during 26th October, 1962 to 31st January, 1964. He submits, his client served at the front in the period.
2. He draws attention to order dated 18th September, 2012 made by coordinate Bench in his client’s earlier writ petition WP(C) no.3422 of 2006. Reproduced below are two paragraphs from said order.
“xx xx xx Now Mr. Behera submits that the Tahasildar, Jatani, is taking steps for allotment o
The court affirmed the principle that a prior court order remains enforceable, mandating government compliance in land allotment cases despite subsequent policy changes.
The automatic cancellation of government land allotment orders occurs when premium is not deposited within the stipulated time, irrespective of communication issues regarding the order.
Government authorities must comply with established eligibility criteria for land allotment to ensure fair treatment of applicants.
Rules of Executive Business – Inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right – Merely writing s....
The court established that higher authorities cannot exercise statutory powers of lower authorities, and actions against interim orders are illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State Government to allot equivalent land to the petitioner and other persons within a stipulated period, emphasizing the nat....
The allotment of land and delivery of possession in favor of the petitioner is a Government Grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895. The State is not entitled to resume the land a....
The court emphasized the distinction between 'transferable' and 'non-transferable' posts and highlighted the principle of legitimate expectations in fair decision-making.
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
