STATE OF ORISSA versus NITYANAND SATPATHY AND ORS.
The land being non-agricultural ('anabadi') and not in cultivating possession of the intermediary on the date of vesting could not be settled in favour of ex-intermediaries under Section 7; the settlement was bad in law as the statutory requirements were not met.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: State of Orissa; Respondent: Nityanand Satpathy and others
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 31 July 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment Dated 22.7.1996 in O.j.c. No. 215 of 1992
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order and judgment of High Court set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Vesting of Estates, Settlement of Land, Khas Possession, Non Agricultural Land, Application of Orissa Estates Abolition Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
State of Orissa
Appellant
Nityanand Satpathy and others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment Dated 22.7.1996 in O.j.c. No. 215 of 1992
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the settlement of 'anabadi' land in favour of ex-intermediaries under Section 7 of Orissa Estates Abolition Act was valid
- 2 Whether land not used for agricultural or horticultural purposes can be settled with ex-intermediaries under Section 7
Ratio Decidendi
The land being non-agricultural ('anabadi') and not in cultivating possession of the intermediary on the date of vesting could not be settled in favour of ex-intermediaries under Section 7; the settlement was bad in law as the statutory requirements were not met.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; order and judgment of High Court set aside.
Orders
- Order and judgment under challenge are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment