Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-03-2005
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT129
..... proceedings and proceeded to the place in question along with two constables. on his way he took two persons along, one of them being a police constable, to act as mediators/independent persons. the memo of search proceeding is exhibit p-1. after reaching the spot, he prepared a panchnama, exhibit p-2 which is signed by the accused persons, two ..... our view, there is no substance in the argument. p.w. 5 is a reserve policeman and there is no bar in law for a policeman to act as a mediator/ panch witness. it should be kept in view that this was a raid which was conducted by excise officials and not by the police.6. the main thrust of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-20-2005
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT440; 2005(II)OLR285
a.s. naidu, j.1. fraud, collusion or misrepresentation nullify any order passed by any authority. the allegations of the petitioner in the present writ petition are to the same extent.2. the lands in dispute are situated in mouza-sindurpank in the district of sambalpur. certain dissensions cropped up inter se between the parties centering round the order passed by the tahsildar in mutation case no. 1176 of 2003. it was alleged by the petitioner that on enquiry it was found that opposite party no. 1 had clandestinely obtained certain orders in his favour from the tahsildar in consonance with the direction issued by the consolidation authority in consolidation revision case no. 291 of 2003 behind the back of the petitioner. the aforesaid consolidation revision alleged to have been filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 invoking jurisdiction of the commissioner of consolidation, sambalpur under section 37(1) of the orissa consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation of land act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the joint commissioner who disposed of the revision case without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances involved therein and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner remanded the said case (consolidation revision case no. 291/03) to the consolidation officer, sambalpur. thereafter no notice was issued to the petitioner by the consolidation officer, and the latter by his order dated 24.5.2003, vide annexure- 12, disposed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-07-2005
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT173; 2006(1)OLR1
order1. heard mr. p. k. rath, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. p. k. mohanty, learned addl. government advocate.2. the petitioners in the present application call in question the order of resumption of lease passed under section 3-b of the orissa government land settlement act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by the tahasildar, bhubaneswar. the facts of the case reveal that in w.l. case no. 1781 of 1978 initiated by an application filed by one lingaraj rath, after following due, procedure as prescribed under the act and the rules framed thereunder, the land bearing plot no.516/ 1679 under khata no.489/48 measuring ac.1,000 was leased out in favour of the said applicant. the name of the said lessee-lingaraj rath was recorded in the record of right in 'sthitiban' status. while in possession of the said land, the original lessee-lingaraj rath sold a part of the same by a registered sale deed to one subasini barei. he also sold another portion of the said land to one jayabana kumar singh. the said j. k. singh, in turn, sold the said land to one sushama das. petitioner no.1- krushna chandra panda has purchased the land to the extent of ac.0.25 from smt. subasini barei and petitioner no.2- laxmipriya rath has purchased the land to the extent of ac.0.45 from smt. sushama das by registered sale deeds. it also appears that in mutation case no.5519 of 2001, the tahasildar, bhubaneswar mutated the purchased land in favour of petitioner no.1.3. it is the case of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-28-2005
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT561; 2005(II)OLR549
a.k. parichha, j. 1. petitioner, the elected sarpanch of gadadhar grama panchayat, has filed this application under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india challenging the notice of sub-collector, nayagarh to record vote of no-confidence against him and the order of removal issued by the collector, nayagarh removing him (petitioner) from the post of sarpanch.2. short of details, the facts leading to the present application are as follows :gadadhar grama panchayat (hereinafter to be called as 'the grama panchayat', in short) in the district of nayagarh has 12 wards and accordingly it has 12 ward members and one sarpanch. in the last election held in the year 2002, the petitioner was elected as the sarpanch of the said gram panchayat for a period of 5 years and he assumed the office as sarpanch. when the matter stood thus, 9 of the ward members submitted requisition accompanied by a proposed resolution dated 10.9.2004 to the sub-collector, nayagarh to convene a meeting for recording vote of no confidence against the petitioner and basing on the said requisition, the sub-collector, nayagarh issued notice bearing no. 1058 dated 1.10.2004 to the members to record the proposed vote of no confidence. in the meeting held on 20.10.2004, 10 of the 13 members including the petitioner were present. 9 of these 10 members cast their votes in favour of no confidence motion and one cast against the motion. basing on this result, the collector, nayagarh issued order bearing no. 1181 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-09-2005
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT473; 2005(II)OLR659
1. the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission on the consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. heard.3. petitioner was elected as sarpanch of machichalla grama panchayat in the district of kalahandi in the panchayat election held in the year 2002, and assumed office accordingly. while the matter stood thus, some of the ward members including naib-sarpanch held meeting on 29.4.2005 and passed a resolution proposing vote of no confidence against the petitioner. they accordingly gave requisition annexure-2 enclosing a copy of resolution annexure-3 to the sub-collector, dharmagarh to convene a meeting to record the vote no confidence. basing on such requisition the sub-collector issued notice to the ward members and the petitioner fixing the date of the meeting to 30.5.2005.,the meeting was accordingly held and the no confidence, motion was carried, whereafter collector, kalahandi issued letter no. 54 dated 9.6.2005 removing the petitioner from the post of sarpanch and basing of that order a letter dated 9.6.2005 was served by the panchayat on the petitioner asking him to make over charge of the grama panchayat to the naib-sarpanch. aggrieved by such action petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging to the legality of the notice issued by the sub-collector, dharmagarh, the holding of the meeting of no confidence on 30.05.2005, the order of issued by collector dated 9.06.2005 and the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-27-2005
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT17
m.m. das, j.1. as a common question has been raised by the petitioner in all the above writ petitions, they were heard together and thus, are disposed of by this common judgment.2. the petitioners in all these writ petitions call in question the constitutional validity of section 24 of the orissa grama panchayat act, 1964. mr. s.p. mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in w.p.(c) no. 11698 of 2004 contended that by the orissa grama panchayat act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new act'), the previous act, namely, the orissa grama panchayat act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old act') was repealed. section 16(1) of the old act provided that every grama sabha shall elect in the prescribed manner from among its members an executive committee, which shall be known as the grama panchayat. the said grama panchayat, subject to the provisions of section 18 thereof, shall elect a sarpanch and a. naib-sarpanch from among its members. section 18 of the said act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 19(1), the sarpanch and the naib-sarpanch of the first grama' sabha shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years and shall be eligible for re-election for one further term of three years. mr. mishra, further contended that rule 35(c) framed under the old act provided for removal of sarpanch if such removal is recommended by a resolution of the grama panchayat passed in a special meeting called for the purpose and supported .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-23-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Ori47
orderr.n. biswal, j.1. the petitioner has filed this elpet with a prayer to declare the election of the respondent to the orissa legislative assembly, from the single member, bhanjanagar constituency no. 66 as void.2. as per the petition, the petitioner was a candidate on behalf of the congress-i party in the last general election, 2004 for the orissa legislative assembly from the single member, bhanjanagar assembly constituency no. 66 and the respondent who was declared elected was a biju janata dal candidate. there was no other candidate.3. on 28-2-2004 notification was published inviting objection, if any for correction of the existing electoral roll prepared for election of the assembly constituted in january 2000. another notification was published on 24-3-2004 for holding election to the orissa legislative assembly, fixing the last date for filing of nomination to 3-3-2004. the petitioner and the respondent filed their respective nominations on 29 3-2004 and 31-3-2004 respectively. on 7-4-2004 the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the electoral roll and to his utter surprise found names of about 14000 electors to have been struck off the existing electoral roll, as in force at the time when the notice dated 28-2-2004 was published. the same was done without giving an opportunity of being heard to the electors whose names were struck off. so, on 7-4-2004 the petitioner made a representation to the chief electoral officer against such illegal action of the electoral .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : 2005(II)OLR633
a.s. naidu, j. 1. a proceeding was initiated under regulation 2 of 1956 (the orissa scheduled areas transfer of immovable property (by scheduled tribes) regulations 1956) against the petitioners on the ground that they being non-scheduled caste persons are in forcible occupation of lands belonging to scheduled tribe persons. the officer-on-special duty (lr), sundargarh after giving notice to the parties by a reasoned order dated 30.11.2002 passed in misc. case no. 3 of 1998 arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners being non-scheduled caste persons are in illegal and forcible possession over the disputed lands and directed their eviction. being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the additional district magistrate. sundargarh. the said appeal was registered as r.a. no. 49 of 2002. the appellate authority after considering all the facts and circumstances held that the appeal has no merit and dismissed the said appeal. the aforesaid orders are assailed in these writ petitions.2. mr. rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners forcefully submitted that the petitioners have purchased the lands in the year 1955 by means of an oral sale deed. they again purchased the same lands by registered sale deed subsequently. though mr. rath failed to disclose the date of the sale deed, the materials available reveal that the registered sale deed was executed on 17.5.1961. admittedly, permission as mandatorily required under regulation 2 of 1956 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-28-2005
Reported in : 2005(I)OLR565
j.p. mishra, j.1. the petitioners have filed this contempt application on 7.4.2003 with the allegation of violation of the order of this court dated 11.8.1998 passed in o.j.c. no. 15454 of 1997.2. this is how the contempt application is before us. one dipak panda and 61 others filed o.j.c. no. 15454 of 1997 challenging the process of selection of appointment of group-d post in the indian ordnance factory, badmal for the post of danger building workers. the process of selection was challenged therein alleging appointment of some candidates by producing false residential certificates and misrepresenting the authorities. the operative portion of the said order dated 11.8.1998 is as follows :'considering all the aspects of the case and considering the submissions of the learned lawyers of the respective parties, we are of the considered view that generally speaking the selection process does not suffer from any infirmity. if there were fraud and misrepresentation practised by the candidates by obtaining false residential certificates to obtain the employment, their cases should be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. opportunity is given to the petitioners to point out the names of the selected candidates individually who are admittedly outsiders and who are alleged to have obtained employment by producing false residential certificates, suppression of facts of misrepresentation and the collector along with the general manager of the ordnance factory .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-02-2005
Reported in : 2005(I)OLR599
sujit barman roy, c.j.1. by this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention dated 10.10.2004 under annexure-1 issued in respect of the petitioner by the district magistrate, jharsuguda, orissa.2. by the impugned order the district magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him by or under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the national security act, 1980 (in short, 'the act') recorded that he was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to direct that the petitioner be detained in the sub-jail, jharsuguda until further orders. on 10.10.2004 itself in execution of the said order of detention the petitioner was arrested and was served with a copy of the order of detention and since then he is detained in the said sub-jail. while in detention, pursuant to the order under annexure-1, petitioner was served with the grounds of detention dated 12.10.2004 under annexure-2 issued by the said district magistrate. as has already been seen, the order of detention was issued against the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.3. after the said detention order and the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner, petitioner made representations before the state government, the central government and before the advisory board .....Tag this Judgment!