Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA
Dillip Kumar Deb – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to prior revenue order (Para 3) |
| 2. rights established by prior court ruling (Para 4) |
| 3. objecting to maintainability of proceedings (Para 5) |
| 4. misconception by revenue authorities (Para 6) |
| 5. setting aside of impugned order (Para 7) |
| 6. disposition of writ petition (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
3. Order dated 26th November, 2021 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OSSR Case No.862 of 2018 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby revision filed by the Petitioners under Section 32 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, ‘Settlement Act’), has been dismissed.
“4. In the result, I find merit in the appeal which succeeds and is allowed on contest. The plaintiff’s right in and tile to the suit lands are hereby declared. Since the defendant is Government of Orisssa, there is no order as to costs.”
4.1 Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that learned Member Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack proceeded on a misconception that the authorities are required to settle the land in favour of the Petitioners. In the instant case, question of settle
Revenue authorities are mandated to respect the decrees of civil courts, as outlined in Rule 34 of the OSS Rules, acknowledging existing rights instead of incorrectly requiring settlement of land.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of previously settled land ownership disputes, especially against procedural lapses, reaffirming established ownership under the Orissa Estates Ab....
Court while relying upon a Will is required to be circumspective. Contentious issue of title can only be decided by civil court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of honoring judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Court, as mandated by Section 8 of the ROR Act, and the significance of admiss....
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
Settlement authorities cannot override confirmed property rights without lawful authority; Judicial review ensures adherence to due process in land ownership disputes.
Transfer of property belonging to a deity without notice to the Endowment Commissioner is illegal, and any ownership claims made through fraud are void.
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to revisit the validity of the sale deed during mutation proceedings, reaffirming that such matters should be handled by competent legal au....
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
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
