S.37 Odisha Prevention Of Land Fragmentation Act | Tahasildar Can’t Modify Record Of Rights Against Direction Of Revisional Authority

Case: Anugraha Narayan Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Coram: Justice Biswanath Rath

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 20072 of 2022

Court Observation: “…the Tahasildar in his limited jurisdiction took a decision differing from the direction of the competent authority U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, which is not permissible in the eye of law. For the opinion of this Court so long as the order of the competent authority U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H.; P.F.L. Act, 1972 remains intact, the Tahasildar being the subordinate authority is bound by the same.”

“Tahasildar Balipatna is directed to verify all the documents and record the suit land in favour of petitioner and Opp. Parties from 02 to 19 by creating a separate khata and delete the note of possession from Hal plot No.154 and 155 in Hal khata no.542 as per circular No. XLII-65/87, 8089/LRS Dt: 13-07-1987 issued by Board of Revenue, Odisha Cuttack Following Due process of Law.”

Previous Posts

Matrimonial Offences Including S.498A IPC May Be Quashed In Exercise Of Powers U/S 482 CrPC When Parties Arrive At Settlement: J&K&L High Court

State Does Not Have Unlimited Resources, Institutions That Waive Arrears To Seek Grant-In-Aid Can’t Be Permitted To Take U-Turn: Uttarakhand HC

Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Court In Area Where Minor Ordinarily Resides Has Jurisdiction U/S 25 Guardians & Wards Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala High Court

Keywords

Odisha Prevention Of Land Fragmentation Act, Rights Against Direction Of Revisional Authority, S.37 Odisha Prevention Of Land Fragmentation Act