Sashibhusan Khuntia v. Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R K PATTANAIK
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
Judgment
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 17.12.2024 I.A. No.14095 of 2024
1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant petition is filed for substitution of LRs of the petitioner, who died on 21st November, 2023.
3. Since substitution is applied within time and right to sue survives, the Court, considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is inclined to allow the substitution.
4. IA is accordingly disposed of impleading LRs of the sole petitioner as petitioner Nos.1 (a) to 1(e). Consolidated cause title of the writ petition is already filed as at Flag-X. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge W.P.(C) No.24394 of 2019
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
None appears for opposite party No.3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-1 in Consolidation Misc. Case No.6 of 2014 on the grounds stated with consequential directions issued.
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction between the petitioner and opposite party No.3 stands validated in view of Section 36A of the OCH & PFL (Amendment) Act, 2023 and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is to be set aside. It is further submitted that in an identical case, this Court in W.P.(C) No.28511 of 2019 dated 8th May, 2024 held the transaction to be valid applying the Amendment Act retrospectively.
A copy of the order in W.P.(C) No.28511 of 2019 is produced in Court today.
Recorded the submission of Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
This Court by order dated 22nd November, 2024 had directed the State to examine and reply as to if such provision of the Amendment Act, 2023 would be applicable and to apply retrospectively.
Objection of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State is noted down.
Having regard to the fact that the alleged transaction has taken place in the year 1991 and the same alleged to have been with the fragmentation of Chaka, hence, to be void in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 but having regard to the Amendment Act, 2023, the Court, in view of a similar view expressed in W.P.(C) No.28511 of 2019, is inclined to hold that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside and to hold that the transaction not be invalid and to be accordingly acted upon.
Hence, it is ordered.
Operative part
In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 19-Dec-2024 11:43:20
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Amendment Act, 2023.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.