Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Pradeep Kumar Behera & Others vs Commissioner Of Land Records & ... on 28 November, 2014

Radhakanta Math vs State Of Odisha And Others ....... ... on 4 February, 2022

7. It is his submission that Section 4(3) or (4) of the Consolidation Act does not clothe a ceiling proceeding under the OLR Act. Section 4 (3) of the Consolidation Act refers to abatement of the proceeding relating to survey, preparation and maintenance of record as well as settlement of land. Although preparation and maintenance of record of right has not been defined in the Consolidation Act, it has the same meaning as mentioned in Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Settlement Act') in view of the proviso to Section 2(w) of the Consolidation Act. Section 2(7) of the Settlement Act defines ROR. Section 16 of the said Act refers to maintenance of records. Rules 33 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') prescribes the manner and procedure of maintenance of records. A harmonious reading of the provisions of the OLR Act vis-à-vis Consolidation Act as well as Settlement Act makes it clear that a ceiling proceeding initiated under the OLR Act does not come within the scope and ambit of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Consolidation Act. He also refers to a decision of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Behera & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement Page 5 of 18 I.A. No.26 of 2021 // 6 // & Ors reported in 2015 (I) ILR-CUT 545, wherein this Court dealing with scope and ambit of Section 4(3) observed as follows:-
Orissa High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K R Mohapatra - Full Document

Gobardhan Khamari vs Sarat Chandra Bohidar And Others on 30 November, 2024

The finding of the 1st Appellate Court that the orders of the authorities constituted under the Act deciding the title and possession of the parties prior to the cancellation cannot be nullified runs entirely contrary to the position of law as reflected in the statute as also the judgments of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Behera Page 25 of 32 (supra) and Satybhama (supra). The further finding that the right and title decided by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in 1981 was long prior to the cancellation notification is entirely untenable in the eye of law. The 1st Appellate Court must be held to have made a complete misreading of the provision under Section-13(4), which refers to the situation obtaining prior to publication of the cancellation notification. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the consolidation ROR was published after publication of the cancellation notification and would therefore, have no value.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document
1