Dismissed

Pankaj Ku.Mahakud v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC6 Apr 2016WP(C)/4250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge Writ Petition challenged a notice to deposit penalty under the Odisha Protection of Land and Environment Act, 1972. The court held that despite the pending civil suit regarding title and a Supreme Court order maintaining status quo on part of the land, the petitioner was bound to pay the assessed penalty for unauthorized government land occupation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay the assessed penalty on or before 30.04.2016.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 15.02 .2016 issued by the Certificate Officer, Barbil-opposite party No.5 in Certificate Case No. 59 of 2015-16 arising out of PR No.170 of 2016 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 ,798/-.

It is contended by the petitioner that the land appertaining to Plot No.28 under Khata No.172 of Mouza-Unihabali in possession of Maa Jagatijanani Temple and Maa Jagatijanani Seva Trust Complex. The petitioner is one of the Trustees of the said Trust and he has no personal claim over the land in question. In the year 2013 one Bhaktabandhu Mahanta, Basudev Naik an d the petitioner who is numerous devotees of Maa Jagatjanani have filed C.S. No.30 of 2013 bef ore the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champua claiming adverse possession over the sa id land in anticipating the arbitrary action of the local Administration to demolish Maa Jagat janani Temple. The opposite party Nos.2 to 4 entered their appearance in the suit and filed t heir written statement before the court below. The application for temporary injunction was r ejected, which was confirmed by this Court on 27.3.2015 in F.A.O. No.203 of 2014. The said ord er was modified by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13267 of 2015 by order da ted 7.5.2015. The Apex Court has modified the order to the extent that status quo shall be ma intain in respect the deity which is in the form of a Banyan Tree and the structure immediatel y surrounding the said Banyan Tree only.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause i ssued by the Tahasildar, Barbil-opposite party No.4 on 21.11.2014 under Section 7 of the OPLE Act, 1972 in Encroachment Case No.411 of 14-15. The petitioner filed his show cause on 28.1 1.2014. However, without considering the same, the

opposite party No.3 passed an order of eviction and issued notice under Form-Kha. Challenging the order of eviction the petitioner preferred an Appeal before opposite party No.3 bearing O PLE Appeal No.7 of 2015 along with an interlocutory Application to stay the notice of evict ion till disposal of the appeal. The petitioner also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8235 of 2015 which was disposed of on 30.04.2015 directing opposite party No.3 to dispose of the appeal within a month from the date of receipt of the order. The appellate court allowed the appeal to the extent as per the direction of the Apex Court. The opposite party No.4 initiate d a Certificate Proceeding for realization of the penalty in respect of unauthorized occupatio n of the Government land.

On perusal of records, it appears that Certificate Case No.59 of 2015-16 was initiated pursuant to Encroachment Case No. 411 of 2014-15 for unauthorized occupation of the Governmen t land to the extent of Ac.3.42 dec. Admittedly, the petitioner is unauthorized occupation of the Government land, though the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest w hich was not yet decided and the status quo of the part of the land is to be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, at the stage, the petitioner is bound to pay the penalty assessed by t he opposite party No.4 which is subject to result of the suit. Rightly, the Certificate Proce eding was initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner pay the amount on or before 30.04.2016.

Pankaj Ku.Mahakud v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Ku.Mahakud v. State of Orissa

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

Satchidananda Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Smt.Malati Muduli Vs State of Orissa

Surendra Kumar Behuria Vs Collector-Cum-D.M.,Sundargarh

Niranjan Prusty Vs Akhila Bharatiya Sikhya Bikash Trust

Naba Kishore Rout Vs State

Prabhati Manjari Sin Vs State