Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Lohit Padhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent orders of consolidation must be addressed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims of fraud require the authority to act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial bodies have inherent power to rectify decisions based on fraud. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. inherent power of courts to reverse orders affected by fraud. (Para 18) |
| 5. writ petitions allowed; orders set aside for further inquiry. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. All the writ petitions are disposed of by the following judgment since a common question is involved.
3. The facts of each case are not separately discussed and narrated for the sake of brevity but reference of one in W.P.(C) No. 7703 of 2017 would suffice the purpose. The petitioner therein like others has challenged the order passed in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2015 by learned Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur arising out of the Consolidation Revision Case No. 195 of 2013 filed under Section 37 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of the Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OCH & PFL Act’).Not only that, the challenge at the behest of the petitioner is also connected to the order dated 10th Apri
The court affirmed that authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to revoke fraudulent orders even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review.
Quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise review powers without explicit statutory authorization, and such actions taken after substantial delays are deemed illegal.
Personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona. But this operates only in a limited class of actions Ex delicto, such as action for damages for d....
Fraud vitiates every solemn act, and an order obtained by fraud can be recalled by the authority. The judiciary possesses inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud, and fraud unravels ev....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that all parties must be included in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
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
