Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar Mallia And Ors. And ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 6 November, 1998

Rama Devi (Dead) vs Government Of Orissa on 20 January, 2014

In the case of Prafulla Chandra Muduli and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2005 (Supp) OLR 950, it was laid down that invoking provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, a Settlement Officer cannot sit in appeal and nullify an order passed by 6 the O.E.A. Collector and, that too, more than two decades after the order passed by the O.E.A. Collector, which might be right or wrong. In the event, a wrong order was passed, the Statute provides the procedure to rectify the same. The observations made by the Settlement Officer that the O.E.A. Collector lacked jurisdiction was misconceived. In paragraph-8 of the judgment, it was held as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M M Das - Full Document

G.Madhab Reddy vs State Of Orissa ........... Opp.Party on 26 March, 2010

The prosecution has even not thought it proper to cross-examine P.W.1. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that seizure was made 5 from exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner. It is settled law that in the absence of proof of conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband article by the accused there can be no conviction of the accused. Reference in this regard be made to the case of Rama Chandra Mallik (supra).
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B K Nayak - Full Document

Radha Govinda Bhattacharya And Another vs State Of Orissa Represented Through ... on 3 January, 2017

Similarly in the case in between Prafulla Chandra Muduli and others versus State of Orissa and others as reported in 2005 (Supp.) OLR 950, this Court has already held that an order passed by the OEA Authoirty cannot be interfered by an authority under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. This Court finds, both the above decisions have a direct bearing on the private opposite parties' case and support the findings arrived at by the Commissioner.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

Radha Govinda Bhattacharya And Another vs State Of Orissa Rep Through Secy Revenue ... on 3 January, 2017

Similarly in the case in between Prafulla Chandra Muduli and others versus State of Orissa and others as reported in 2005 (Supp.) OLR 950, this Court has already held that an order passed by the OEA Authoirty cannot be interfered by an authority under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. This Court finds, both the above decisions have a direct bearing on the private opposite parties' case and support the findings arrived at by the Commissioner.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document
1