Allowed

Harekrushna Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 May 2016WP(C)/23847/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court set aside an order rejecting an application for intervention in a lease revision case. The court ordered the revisional authority to hold an enquiry concerning the communal usage of disputed land and grant the public an opportunity of hearing before deciding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration after enquiry and hearing.

Harekrushna Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.23847 OF 2015

¶2

12.5.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶3

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.4.2015 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore in O.G.L.S Revision Case No.2 of 1995 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and others under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C for intervention.

¶4

¶5

The petitioners contended that the land appertaining to Plot No.1371 measuring an area of Ac.0.07 decimals, Plot No.1396 measuring an area of Ac.0.32 decimals, Plot No.1401 measuring an area of Ac.0.32 decimals, Plot No.1401 measuring an ara of Ac.0.07 decimals and Plot No.1404 measuring an area of Ac.0.02 decimals under Khata No.508 of Mouza – Nafarai is a Government land having ‘Abadajogya Anabadi’ status. The said land was settled in favour of opposite party nos.4 to 6 by the Tahasildar in Lease Case No.176 of 1976 illegally. The order passed in the lease case was challenged before the Addl. District Magistrate (LR), Balasore in O.G.L.S Case No.1 of 1988. The revisional authority by order dated 05.6.1988 set side the order passed by the Tahasildar. Challenging the said order O.J.C No.2707 of 1990 was preferred and this Court by order dated 03.1.1995 set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within a period of eight weeks. However, the case is still pending.

¶6

While matter stood thus the petitioner along with three others have filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C for intervention in the revision case. It was contended that the land

¶7

¶8

in question is used by general public. A Government Homeopathy Dispensary, Durga Puja Mandap, Hari Samaj Temple, Daily Market, Weekly Hat and Play ground are existing over the said land. Hence they may be impleaded as parties to the proceeding. The land being used by the public, thereby depriving them of using the land for such purpose. The revisional authority by the impugned order rejected the application without considering whether the applicants are affected persons or not in case lease is granted.

¶9

The land in question as contended is being used for communal purpose for which an enquiry is necessary and opportunity of hearing is to be given to the public. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this Court sets aside the impugned order and remits the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The above exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably by end of October, 2016.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶11

S.Panda, J.

¶12

��.. K.R.Mohapatra, J.

Harekrushna Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harekrushna Mohanty 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Hansda Vs State of Orissa

Ex.Eng.Ganjam Elect. Vs Lingaraj

Utkal Port and D.W.U. Vs Presiding Officer

A-1 Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Smita Nayak Vs State

Mirza Ansar Alli Baig Vs Union of India,New Delhi