Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Motwali Sk. Kausar And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 1 October, 1986

Manjulata Das And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 11 May, 2022

31. Likewise, the decision in Motwali Sk. Kausar v. State of Orissa, 63 (1987) C.L.T. 526 is also of no assistance. There, it was held on facts that the order of the Tahasildar was under the lease principles and not under the OEA Act and, therefore, Section 38-B of the OEA Act would have no application. In the present case, however, the order of the Additional Tahasildar was in fact under the OEA Act and therefore, there was no question of lack of jurisdiction as far as the Member, BoR is concerned. The said decision is also, therefore, of no assistance.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

Smt. Basanti Kumari Sahu vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 30 October, 1991

In course of hearing of the matter, it was contended that the holding in Premananda Das v. State of Orissa and Ors., 67 (1989) CLT 548, was in conflict with an earlier Bench decision of this Court in the case of Motwali Ek. Kausar and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 63 (1987) CLT 526 and was contrary to the principle decided by two Full Benches of this Court in the case of Krupasindhu Misra v. Govinda Chandra Misra and Ors. 50 (1984) CLT 393 F.B. and Radhamani Dibya and Ors. v. Braja Mohan Biswal and Ors., *57(1984) CLT 1 (F.B.).
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - R C Patnaik - Full Document

Bhagaban Panda And Anr. vs Dullav Panda And Ors. on 15 March, 1990

Executive instructions were issued by the Government under G.O. No. 14399 dated 2-3-1964 to grant fresh lease of the lands to the concerned persons who would have been entitled to retain the lands had they applied for in time, on realisation of arrear rent and salami, though under the provisions of the Act lands in question would be treated as having been vested in the State Government. In the present case the settlement is under the aforesaid Executive Instructions, which are commonly known as "The Lease Principles". As such settlement of the land was not under Chapter II of the Act, the provisions of Section 39 of the Act are not attracted. If the Tahsildar passes an order settling the land contrary to the instructions of the State Government, it means that while passing such an order, he had over-stepped his jurisdiction and the same is, therefore, without jurisdiction. (See Motwali Sk. Kausar v. State of Orissa, (1987) 63 Cut LT 526).
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1