AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Dhal, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, memo has been filed on behalf of his client for withdrawal of the writ petition, with liberty to file better application. Text of the memo is reproduced below.
“Due to some development in the situation, petitioner does hereby want to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file better application.”
On query from Court Mr. Dhal submits, the appeal under Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 has since been dealt with and against the order made, his client has filed for revision. That is why prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition.
Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.
On further query made, Court has ascertained from Mr. Dhal that opposite party no.5 applied to the Revenue Officer under section 23-A for eviction of petitioner. On the other hand, there was scrutiny being made by opposite party no.1, in respect of caste certificate issued to father of opposite party no.5 (opposite party no.4). During pendency of this scrutiny, the appeal stood disposed of and petitioner has filed for revision. It is clear that in event scrutiny reveals caste certificate of opposite party no.4 is fake, consequence would be that opposite party no.5 could not have applied to the Revenue Officer under section 23-A.
Petitioner’s cause in the writ petition has dissipated by reason of subsequent event of disposal of the appeal and filing revision. In event petitioner is aggrieved, either by result in the scrutiny or in the revision, that would be of fresh cause of action. In the circumstances, no question arises for petitioner to be granted liberty to file afresh upon withdrawing this writ petition.
In view of aforesaid, no further order need be made on the writ petition. It is disposed of.
…………………………