SHANTINATH CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the opposite parties-State.

(2.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar involving a proceeding under Sections 15 and 25 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 vide R.P. No.625 of 1993.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Shri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner before the competent authority, submitted that for the presence / availability of "˜Amalanama' issued by the original owner of the land, further also for existence of "˜Ekpadia' issued by the Ex-Jamidar in favour of the petitioner and further for there is assessment of rent involving the disputed land by the competent authority involving the petitioner and the acceptance of the rent as well, Shri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no consideration of all these aspects by the competent authority resulting the bad and illegal impugned order. Shri Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Manmohan Rout (and after him) Sundari Devi and others v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 74 (1992) C.L.T. 454 , taking this Court to the ratio decided by this Court in paragraph-3 therein submitted that for the ratio decided by this Court being applicable to the case at hand, the impugned order should otherwise be liable to be interfered and set-aside.