DAITARY SWAIN Vs. KARTIKA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following propositions of law have been referred for our decision.

(2.) The aforesaid reference has been made in the following circumstances.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the later Division Bench while pronouncing its judgment in Natabara Pandey case (Supra) has not referred to the judgment pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court earlier in the case of Smt. Sarala Kumari Rath (Supra). Similarly, the Single Bench of this Court in Subal Baliarsingh case (Supra) has also not referred to the Division Bench decision as rendered in Smt. Sarala Kumari Rath case (Supra). In such background, he submitted that the later two judgments namely the judgments rendered in the case of Natabara Pandey and Subal Baliarsingh (Supra) have been pronounced per curiam and, therefore, should be over ruled so far as their observations relating to the rights of Sikimi tenant are concerned.