Latest news with #SKPanigrahi
Time of India
7 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
HC lays down strict guidelines regulating sale, transfer of undivided joint family property of SC/ST equal shareholders
CUTTACK: In a significant ruling aimed at protecting the rights of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities, the Orissa high court has laid down stringent legal guidelines for regulating the sale and transfer of undivided joint family property by SC/ST coparceners (equal shareholders). Justice S K Panigrahi, in a recent judgment, held that no member of an SC/ST family can legally alienate a specific portion of joint property unless there has been a formal partition — either through a registered mutual agreement or a civil court decree. "In the absence of lawful partition, any proposed alienation must have the express, informed consent of all SC/ST coparceners," the court said, adding that the onus lies on the transferor to prove such consent. The order further stipulates that when the buyer does not belong to an SC/ST community, the transfer will only be valid with prior permission from the competent revenue authority. Such permission can only be granted after verifying that the seller's share is legally partitioned and demarcated, the transaction does not compromise the livelihood or shelter of any coparcener and the sale does not violate protective legal provisions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search Ads Search Now Undo "No mutation in favour of the buyer shall be allowed unless the transferor produces proof of partition and/or written consent of other SC/ST coparceners," the order issued on July 18 stated. The court clarified that any sale in contravention of these norms shall be deemed void— invalid from the outset — and not merely voidable. In such cases, authorities may suo motu initiate cancellation of the sale under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 or other applicable laws. The judgment was delivered in a case involving an undivided joint property — four acres and 40 decimals of land at Baniapat Khuntapada in Keonjhar district — with three brothers and three sisters from a Scheduled Caste family as legal heirs. The three sisters - Srimati Sethi, Saraswati Sethy and Malati Behera - moved the court after they were excluded from sale transactions executed by the brothers. The sold land was transferred to a person not belonging to the SC/ST community who later received compensation when the land was acquired for national highway expansion. In the judgment, Justice Panigrahi ruled, "All transactions and derivative rights, if any, emanating from the impugned sale deeds executed in relation to the land are held to be vitiated. Such transactions, having been made without partition, without consent of all coparceners and in violation of statutory protections applicable to members of the Scheduled Castes, shall be treated as invalid legally and shall not form the basis for any mutation, possession, or claim by any party, private or institutional. "
New Indian Express
24-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Orissa High Court upholds eviction of religious structure from govt land in Rajgangpur
CUTTACK: In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has upheld the eviction of a religious structure located on government land in Rajgangpur municipality of Sundargarh district. The order passed by Justice SK Panigrahi on July 18 dismissed a writ petition filed by the managing committee of Lal Baba Dargah (Mazahar), challenging their eviction initiated by local authorities in 2015. The petitioner had contested the eviction proceedings initiated by the sub-collector-cum-estate officer, Sadar, Sundargarh under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The eviction order, passed on September 26, 2015, was subsequently upheld by the collector of Sundargarh on July 19, 2016. The petitioner had sought quashing of both orders. At the core of the dispute was whether the land in question, classified as Rasta (road), qualified as 'public premises' under the 1972 Act. The court observed that the land lies within the jurisdiction of Rajgangpur municipality and recorded in the name of state government, which clearly place it within the statutory definition of 'public premises.' Justice Panigrahi noted that the classification of the land as Rasta only reaffirmed its public character and did not preclude action under the Eviction Act. He rejected the petitioner's argument that such land should be treated differently, terming the contention as 'misconceived' and 'contrary to the plain language' of the statute. The court further ruled that the existence of structures for religious or public purposes cannot legitimise unauthorised occupation of government land unless such occupation is regularised under law. 'No amount of well-intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions,' the judgment stated.
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Time of India
HC upholds eviction of unauthorised structure on govt land
Cuttack: Orissa high court has upheld eviction proceedings against a religious structure situated on govt land under Rajgangpur Municipality area of Sundargarh district. In a July 18 judgment, Justice S K Panigrahi dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, bringing to an end a decade-old legal battle. The structure is said to be more than 40 years old. The petitioner had challenged the 2015 eviction order passed by the sub-collector-cum-estate officer (Sadar), Sundargarh, under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The order was later upheld by the Sundargarh district collector in 2016. The petitioner contended that the land, recorded as rasta (road), could not be treated as "public premises" under the Act and cited the existence of long-standing structures used for religious purposes. However, the court rejected the argument, observing that the land fell squarely within the definition of "public premises" as it lies within the municipal limits of Rajgangpur, and is recorded in the name of the state govt. "The classification as rasta affirms its public character and reinforces its inclusion within the scope of the statute," the court noted. Justice Panigrahi held that the Orissa Public Premises Act provides a clear legal mechanism for evicting unauthorised occupants from public land and that no distinction could be drawn between different types of govt land when it comes to enforcement. The court further observed that even if the structure was serving public or religious purposes, such unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised without due legal sanction.
New Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC rejects AIIMS Bhubaneswar faculty body's recognition plea
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has declined to entertain a petition filed by the Faculty Association of AIIMS-Bhubaneswar (FAIIMS), seeking quashing of an order by the executive director treating it as unrecognised organisation, and restoration of its status under the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993. The single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi observed that FAIIMS was never formally recognised in accordance with the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 and has no legal or statutory right to claim the status. 'No enforceable right of the petitioner has been infringed so as to warrant the intervention of this court. The appropriate course for the petitioner, if it desires official recognition, is to comply with the requisite conditions and pursue recognition through the proper statutory procedure, not to seek short-circuit through judicial fiat,' Justice Panigrahi said. He directed FAIIMS to apply to the central government with all documents seeking formal recognition and the latter shall take steps to formally recognize the association within one month from the date of submission of the application.
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC declares demolition of community centre in Cuttack dist ‘illegal'
Cuttack: Terming the act as an instance of 'bulldozer justice', Orissa high court has declared the demolition of a community centre in Balipur village under Athagarh tehsil in Cuttack district illegal and ordered to provide a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the youth association which was managing the facility. The structure stood on 0.05 acres of gochar (grazing) land and had served vital public functions, including holding health camps, awareness drives and govt outreach programmes. The demolition, carried out in an encroachment case by revenue authorities on Dec 14 last year was allegedly executed without giving the villagers or the youth association adequate time to seek legal redress. The community had even offered to exchange homestead land for the portion used, but their pleas were apparently not heard. The association filed a petition in HC seeking a direction to declare the demolition of the structure as illegal, order its reconstruction at govt expense, award compensation for loss and initiate proceedings against officials responsible for it. Justice S K Panigrahi, in his June 20 judgment, observed that it is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. The judgment criticised the haste shown by the tehsildar, who acted in violation of Supreme Court guidelines and subsisting judicial orders. Of the Rs 10 lakh compensation awarded, Rs 2 lakh will be recovered in instalments from the salary of the tehsildar, citing his direct role in the demolition. The remaining Rs 8 lakh is to be paid by the state govt within eight weeks, Justice Panigrahi specified in his order. He also directed the initiation of departmental proceedings against the tehsildar and mandated the chief secretary and revenue secretary to ensure compliance. Further, the chief secretary has been instructed to issue comprehensive guidelines for all revenue and municipal officials, aligning with the SC's directives to prevent future violations of this nature.
