Dismissed

Anguru Munda v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC24 Oct 2016WP(C)/20467/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition since the petitioner had a clear statutory remedy of appeal under the OPLE Act. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within two weeks, seeking condonation of delay based on the pendency of proceeding in the High Court, with status quo maintained pending appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal within two weeks seeking condonation of delay; status quo maintained pending appeal outcome.

Anguru Munda Vs State and Ors. — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

 W.P. (C) No.20467 of 2013
24.10.2016

¶2

Heard.

¶3

 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the direction contained
in the notice issued in exercise of power under the OPLE Act as available under Annexure-1 to
this petition.

¶4

 In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that eve
n though an encroachment proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and some orders
have been passed therein, there is no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner and for w
hich, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the petitioner is resi
ding over the disputed property along with several other persons since long and there has been
 no proper consideration of the case of the petitioner involving the encroachment proceeding.
 Upon notice, the State authorities by filing a counter affidavit brought to the notice
 of this Court that the encroachment proceeding initiated against the petitioner is already ov
er and depending upon the finality of the proceeding Form GA has already been issued against t
he petitioner restricting him not to proceed with any further construction.

¶5

 Considering the rival contentions of the parties and as this Court finds the petitione
r has a clear statutory remedy of appeal under the OPLE Act, it is open to the petitioner to p
refer an appeal within a period of two weeks hence along with an application for condonation o
f delay indicating therein that delay in filing an appeal is occurred due to pendency of the p
roceeding in the High Court and the appeal is filed on being permitted by this Court and in su
ch event, the delay shall be

¶6

condoned and the appeal shall also be heard on its own merit.

¶7

 Till the final outcome is come in the appeal, status-quo as on date in respect of the
disputed property shall be maintained by both the parties.

¶8

 Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶9

 Biswanath Rath, J.

¶10

Anguru Munda v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anguru Munda v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswaranjan D.Kanung Vs N.I.Co.Ltd.

Millenium Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Committee of Management of Garbhanipada Scs Ltd,Khurda Vs State of Odisha

Babitarani Behera Vs State of Orissa

Taramoni Vs Commissioner

Hari Parida Vs State