LAXMIDHAR PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
STATE OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BOTH these writ applications are petitions for certiorari. Several orders passed by the Revenue Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority under the Orissa Land Reforms Act are impugned in these writ petitions. The oetitioner in both the writ petitions is the same person but some of the opposite parties are different
(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 3 In O. J. C. 802/1970 and opposite parties 3 and 4 in O. J. C. 803 of 1970 separately applied to the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 2 in both the writ petitions) for determination of their respective tenancv interests in the lands in question under the petitioner and the other opposite parties -- Padma Dibya and Baidei Dei. The petitioner and his relations opposed the claim by saying that the applications before the Revenue Officer were made mala fide by persons who had no connection with the lands in question. Their possession as tenants was seriously disputed.
(3.) THE Revenue Officer held local enquiry on 25-12-1966. It is stated that he received some evidence from the people who were present at the spot and made some confidential enquiry. On the basis of such materials he found the claim of tenancy to be genuine in both the cases. Appeals were carried against the aforesaid order in both the cases, and as the appeals proved unsuccessful, revisions were also carried to the Additional District magistrate of Puri. He upheld the orders of the original authority as affirmed in appeal. These writ applications are, therefore, filed for quashing of the several orders by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.