Kartik Nag v. State of Odisha

Case Number: CRLMC No.37 of 2022

Date of Decision: : 20th April 2022

The Petitioner was accused of commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and had prayed for release on bail in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Petitioner was arrested on the charges of transporting and possessing 73Kg 800gms of contraband.

The investigation continued and 180 days completed on 3rd January, 2021. On 4th January 2021, a petition was filed by prosecution praying for extension of a further period of 180 days for completion of investigation and submission of chargesheet. On the same day, Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Malkangiri granted extension of 60 days to the prosecution for completion of investigation without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Again on 1st March 2021, the prosecution filed another petition praying for further extension of 60 days to file chargesheet. The defence counsel objected to such prayer. However, the Special Judge granted further extension of 15 days to the prosecution to file the chargesheet. On 15.03.2021, chargesheet was filed by the prosecution against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner contended that contends before this Court that remanding him in custody on 4th January 2021 & again on 1st March 2021 was against the principles of law enumerated in Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

This Court while relying on the case of Lambodar Bag v. State of Orissa ((2018) 71 OCR 31), held that in the present case, the indefeasible right of the Petitioner for his release on default bail had been violated. Therefore, the petition of the Petitioner was allowed.

Smt. Karnam Annapurna and Ors. v. Collector, Gajapati and Anr.

Case Number: RSA No.312 of 2015

Date of decision: 10th October, 2022

In this case, the Appellants have challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Parlakhemundi. The Appellant has contended that he was the right, title owner of the lands in Sabik Patta No.407, Survey No.333/8 measuring Ac.0.25 decimals under Kasinagar Khaspa (mouza) and he had gifted Ac.0.03½ decimals of land out of the same in favour of the Forest Department for construction of staff quarters by executing Registered Gift Deed No.161 dated 14.2.1963. Thereafter Public Works Department acquired Ac.0.10 decimals out of the same plot for construction of the road upon payment of compensation. But the Forest Department illegally occupied the entire remaining lands beyond the extent of Ac.0.03½ decimals (three and half decimals) gifted to them and constructed another quarters over the same.

The Respondents-State authorities contended that Forest Department have got their right over the entire suit property including those three and half decimals by way of adverse possession and in the last major settlement operation, the entire patch of suit land has been recorded in favour of Forest Department in Plot No.8304, Khata No.486 of mouza-Kasinagar measuring area Ac.0.115 decimals. They further stated that the land beyond three and half decimals is under possession of Forest Department since 1963, i.e. the date of execution of the Gift Deed in respect of three and half decimals. They have constructed quarters over the same and a well is also situating over the suit land. Their possession over the suit land is continuous, intentional and peaceful and within the full knowledge of the Plaintiff.

This Court observed that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others ((2011) 10 SCC 404) while explaining the doctrine of adverse possession has held that no Government Department should be permitted to perfect their title by way of adverse possession. It was further observed that the unauthorized occupation of the suit land by the State Forest Department since 1963 was admitted. At the same time, the true ownership of Appellant and his title over the suit land was not disputed. Therefore the appeal was allowed and the Respondents were directed to pay compensation to the Appellants, equivalent to the amount twice the present bench mark value of the suit schedule ‘A’ land after deducting three and half decimals there-from as gifted in favour of the Forest Department.