Writ Petition filed to quash encroachment proceedings was dismissed as the underlying appeal regarding land title remains pending before the appellate court, precluding this Court from entertaining the writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO.13319 OF 2015
04.11.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the procee
ding in Encroachment Case No.149 of 2015 pending before the Tahasildar, Baliguda.
3. The Tahasildar, Baliguda opposite party no.3 initiated Encroachment Case No.149 of 20
15 and issued notice to the petitioner in Form No.KA on 24.2.2015 to file show cause. The peti
tioner has filed his show cause on 18.4.2015. Before filing of the show cause, the notice unde
r Form No.GA was issued to the petitioner restraining him to continue with the construction wo
rk over the disputed land. As the order was violated, the Tahasildar also issued warrant of ar
rest against the petitioner for violation of the Courts order.
4. It is contended by the petitioners that their father namely Gopinath Behera as plaint
iff had filed T.S No.13 of 2002 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bal
iguda for declaration of his right, title and interest over Plot Nos.1067 and 1068 under Khata
No.771 of Mouza Baliguda. The court below decreed the suit in part and directed to settle th
e suit land in favour of the plaintiff within a stipulated time and the other relief claimed b
y the plaintiff was rejected. The State Government preferred R.F.A No.97 of 2006 before this C
ourt, which is still pending.
5. Since R.F.A No.97 of 2006 is still pending, this Court is not inclined to entertain th
is Writ Petition. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the appellate court to pr
otect his right, if any, if so advised.
The Writ Petition along with Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed.
Certified copies of Annexure-1 be returned to learned counsel for the petitioners on b
eing substituted by authenticated Xerox copies.
S.Panda, J.
2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State Government
Tahasildar, Baliguda
S.Panda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court