Disposed

Gopal Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Dec 2016WP(C)/20524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dealt with a writ petition regarding an alleged illegal vacation notice in an encroachment case. It held that since an appeal remedy existed, it directed the Tahasildar to provide a copy of the final order within seven days, enabling the petitioner to file an appeal after demonstrating condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Tahasildar to supply a final order copy within seven days and staying eviction pending the petitioner's filing of a regular appeal with condoned delay.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is alleged that after the notice under Annexure-2, even though the petitioner ap peared before the Authority and filed his objection, vide Annexure-3, there is no hearing in t he matter and the petitioner has also no communication with regard to the final order in the E ncroachment Case No.146/2016. The petitioner found surprise to get a notice of vacation of the land within thirty days, as appearing at Annexure-1 giving rise to a cause of action to the p etitioner to move this Court in present writ petition.

It is also alleged that in spite of the petitioners asking for a copy of the final order, he has not been supplied of the same as on date. This matter was heard on 25.11.2016 and considering the allegation of the learned c ounsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the learned State Counsel to take instruction i n the matter, particularly on the allegation made by the petitioner herein.

Today on appearance of the learned State Counsel referring to the documents supplie d to him, submitted that there has been final order involving Encroachment Case No.146/2016 fi nding the petitioner as an encroacher and thereby directing the petitioner to vacate the land within thirty days. It is alleged by the learned State Counsel that instead of approaching the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has wrongly approached the writ forum and the writ petiti on is not maintainable in view of availability of alternate forum. Hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds , the allegation of the

Since this matter involves eviction of the petitioner from the land under his posse ssion and as this Court finds, the petitioner has appeal remedy, the Tahasildar, Kaptipada, is directed to supply a copy of the final order passed in Encroachment Case No.146/2016 to the p etitioner within a period of seven days and on receipt of the copy of the order, it will be op en to the petitioner file appeal within seven days thereafter along with an application for co ndonation of delay explaining the permission granted by this Court and the grant of certified copy by the Tahasildar on particular date and further accompanying an application for interim protection. In the event on filing the appeal along with such application, indicated herein ab ove, the delay shall be condoned and the appeal shall be heard on merit and till a decision is taken in the interim application to be filed by the petitioner along with the appeal, in the event the petitioner has not been evicted as on date, shall not be evicted.

Gopal Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhabananda Palei Vs State of Orissa

Hadi Palei Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Behuria Vs State and Ors.

Narakhari Pradhan Vs Tahasildar,Tangi

Abhaya Ku Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Shakuntala Jena Vs Member of Board of Revenue