Manoj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2116 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No.8148 of 2022

            Manoj Kumar Sahoo                       ....           Petitioner(s)
                                                         Mr. A.Ch. Mohapatra,
                                                                    Advocate

                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha & Ors.                  ....      Opposite Party(s)
                                                             Mr. U.K. Sahoo,
                                                      Addl. Standing Counsel

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

                                        ORDER

06.04.2022 Order No.

01. 1. It is alleged that in spite of receipt of the instrument vide Annexure-2 by the competent authority vide Annexure-1, the registering authority in the guise of clarification from the competent authority i.e. the Urban land Ceiling Authority, Cuttack-O.P.4, is sitting over the matter. Referring to the paragraph no.3 of the writ petition, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for Petitioner that even though the land of the Petitioner was shown to be ceiling surplus land, however for the issue being entertained through O.J.C. No.17012 of 2001 by this Court, this Court in disposal of the above noted writ petition on 3.04.2014 has already observed that the disputed land is free from ceiling surplus. It is alleged that in spite of protection by the judgment of the High Court, the District Sub-Registrar is bent upon in not registering the instrument and insisting a clarification from the competent authority i.e. the Urban land Ceiling Authority, Cuttack. Since the disputed land is already

// 2 //

involved in the decision making process in O.J.C. No.17012 of 2001 and since such issue involving the very same land has already been decided by this Court observing that the disputed land is free from ceiling surplus, this Court finds, the authorities are bound by such decision and there may not be any necessity of any such clarification in this regard.

Be that as it may, Mr. Sahoo, learned State Counsel seeks some time to obtain instruction in the matter.

2. List this matter on next Wednesday (13th April, 2022). Instruction, if any, be obtained in the meantime. It is also made clear that pendency of the writ petition shall not stand as a bar in registering the instrument provided the land involved in the instrument is already held to be not a ceiling surplus land by disposal of such writ petition.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Ayaskanta Jena