Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Manjushree Dash – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No. II, Odisha Bbsr – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final order allowing writ application. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. lease validity and entitlement of petitioners. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. jurisdictional authority under statutory provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. irregularities in authority delegation under statute. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp.Parties, to show cause as to why the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the O.P. No. 3 in Objection Case No. 3368 of 2013 vide VOS in Objection Case No. 5625 of 2013 under Annexure-10 & 10-A and the order dt. 17.12.2024 passed in RP Case No. 1658 of 2014, of the O.P. No.1 as under Annexure-12 respectively, thereby apparently confirming the recording of the scheduled land in Govt. Khata vide Annexure-13 shall not be quashed with further direction to record the schedule land in the name of the Petitioners, in Sthtiban Status giving due regards to Govt. Circular vide Anenxure-14, within a particula
Authority under statutory law must act within defined limits; remitting issues back to lower authorities without jurisdiction is invalid.
The authority to hear revisions under the OSS Act rests with the Board of Revenue, not the Tahasildar, reaffirming the necessity for adherence to statutory provisions.
The Tahasildar cannot exceed jurisdiction by disregarding multiple prior judicial mandates in mutation proceedings, reflecting improper legal interpretation.
The Tahasildar must follow judicial directives in land mutation cases and cannot independently revisit settled matters, ensuring adherence to established legal procedures.
The court ruled that administrative decisions affecting rights must provide specific grounds and ensure the affected parties have a right to a fair hearing.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
The court reaffirmed that failing to provide proper notice to affected parties violates principles of natural justice, rendering administrative orders void.
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
