PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. DIBAKAR BEHERA
LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-82
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on
August 27,2008
PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA
Appellant
VERSUS
Dibakar Behera
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAM CHANDRA SWAIN V. SUB - DIVISIONAL OFFICER,SADAR,CUTTACK AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE V. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
JADUMANI DARJI V. KISHANLAL BHAGABAN DAS FIRM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SATYABHAMA PANDEY V. BHAGIRATHI JAIPURIA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. V. HARENDRA ARORA AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA MORESHWAR VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]
K KAMARAJA NADAR MARIAPPAN M R MASANI VS. KUNJU THEIVAR:V R NEDUNCHEZHIYAN:THE ELEPTION TRIBUNAL RANCHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]
RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO LIMITED RAMPUR VS. MUNICINAL BOARD RAMPUR [REFERRED TO]
KALAWATI VS. BISHESHWAR [REFERRED TO]
JANKINATH SARANGI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MFG CO LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPO RATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. V K KANGAN:NARASIMHA RAM NAIK [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDLAL CHHAGANLAL PATEL VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE GODHRA [REFERRED TO]
SHARIF UD DIN VS. ABDUL GANI LONE [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DALCHAND VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]
G S LAMBA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD SAH KESARI VS. LAKSHMI NARAYAN GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER CHADHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B P KHEMKA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BIRENDRA KUMAR BHOWMICK [REFERRED TO]
RUBBER HOUSE VS. EXCELSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN M V "VALI PERO" OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN M V "VALI PERO" VS. FERNANDEO LOPEZ:FERNANDEO LOPEZ [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANASAMI GOUNDER VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SELVAMANI [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAGHUBIR DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M K KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH NADUVIL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S K SINGH VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KAPIL VS. SANA ULLAH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA TIN PLATE CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. TIN PLATE CO OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAJOR A HUSSAIN IC 14827 [REFERRED TO]
T SRINIVASAN VS. T VARALAKSHMI MRS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHATRUGHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
DINKAR ANNA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
B S KHURANA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT SINGH VS. TARKESHWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. ANAND KUMAR SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VS. NANHKU [REFERRED TO]
RANI KUSUM VS. KANCHAN DEVI [REFERRED TO]
DOVE INVESTMENTS PVT LTD VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INV CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN KUMAR VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH SIPKA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KARUNAKAR GOND VS. PITABAS SAHU [REFERRED TO]
BAIDHAR BEHERA VS. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, O.L.R., CENTRAL DIVISION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.S.CHAUHAN, J. -
(1.)THIS writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 27.9.2007 passed in OJC No. 1320 of 1999 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Puri - Respondent no. 3 in proceedings under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') initiated at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and orders of other Revenue Authorities confirming the same stand dismissed.
(2.)THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 96 of 1992 under Section 23 of the Act before the Revenue Officer, Puri for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.5.1972 executed in favour of the Appellant by their father without prior permission of the Revenue Officer. The said Misc. Case was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide Judgment and Order Dated 9.5.1983 ( Annexure -1 ) and the sale deed dated 2.5.1972 was held to be null and void. Appellant was directed to restore possession to the said Respondents. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal, i.e. OLR Appeal No. 12/ 83 which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 31.7.19:85 (Annexure - 2). The said Judgment and order of the Appellate authority was affirmed by the revisional authority in Revision No. 5/85 vide Judgment and Order Dated 28.1.1995 (Annexure -3), Against the said revisional order the Writ Petition was filed which has also dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 27.9.2007. Hence this appeal.
Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has agitated the sole ground that as notice was not served upon the transferor Judgment and orders impugned herein, being violative of principle of natural justice stood vitiated. Thus appeal deserve to be allowed.
(3.)ON the other hand, Mr. P. Panda, Learned Additional Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the alleged sale deed being in contravention of the statutory provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act was void and therefore, the Judgment and orders passed by the Revenue Authorities do not require any interference. The said Judgments are in consonance with law. Provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act are mandatory and require strict adherence. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(2.)THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 96 of 1992 under Section 23 of the Act before the Revenue Officer, Puri for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.5.1972 executed in favour of the Appellant by their father without prior permission of the Revenue Officer. The said Misc. Case was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide Judgment and Order Dated 9.5.1983 ( Annexure -1 ) and the sale deed dated 2.5.1972 was held to be null and void. Appellant was directed to restore possession to the said Respondents. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal, i.e. OLR Appeal No. 12/ 83 which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 31.7.19:85 (Annexure - 2). The said Judgment and order of the Appellate authority was affirmed by the revisional authority in Revision No. 5/85 vide Judgment and Order Dated 28.1.1995 (Annexure -3), Against the said revisional order the Writ Petition was filed which has also dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 27.9.2007. Hence this appeal.
Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has agitated the sole ground that as notice was not served upon the transferor Judgment and orders impugned herein, being violative of principle of natural justice stood vitiated. Thus appeal deserve to be allowed.
(3.)ON the other hand, Mr. P. Panda, Learned Additional Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the alleged sale deed being in contravention of the statutory provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act was void and therefore, the Judgment and orders passed by the Revenue Authorities do not require any interference. The said Judgments are in consonance with law. Provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act are mandatory and require strict adherence. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.