Heard.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned notice unde
r Annexure-1.
In substantiating his case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impu
gned notice under Annexure-1 is bad in law for the reason of non-consideration of an applicati
on for settlement of the land at the instance of the petitioner, which had also been filed on
the date of hearing of the matter. By producing a copy of the petition at the instance the pet
itioner for settlement of the land before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submi
tted that the application for settlement of the land was very much pending and the impugned de
cision has been taken without considering the request of the petitioner.
From perusal of the impugned order and the documents produced before this Court and af
ter considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, since an application f
or settlement of the land was already filed by the petitioner, the Tahasildar was required to
first consider the application for settlement and thereafter, would have passed the final orde
r. In absence of which, this Court finds there is no proper application of mind and for which,
the order under Annexure-1 remain unsustainable.
In view of the above, this Court while setting aside the order vide Annexure-1 remits
the matter back to the Tahasildar, Bangiriposi, Dist.-Mayurbhanj-opposite party No.4 to rehear
the matter and pass appropriate order thereon taking into consideration the application for s
ettlement of the land at the instance of the petitioner within a period of three months from t
he date of communication of this order. For this period, status-quo as on date in respect of t
he disputed property in question shall be maintained by both the parties.
