Filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned orders passed by
the competent authority in exercise of power under the OPLE Act vide Annexures-3, 5 & 7.
Assailing the impugned orders particularly referring to the order in the original proc
eeding, learned counsel for the petitioners raised objections firstly, the matter was decided
hastily without even granting sufficient time to the petitioners, refusing petitioners asking
for supply of copy of the preliminary report of the R.I. and requesting the original authority
for grant of more time to come up with fitting objection on the allegations in initiating the
proceedings. Taking this Court to the documents filed by the opposite parties in their counte
r affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners also attempted to justify his claims that adm
ittedly, there has been an application for supply of the documents as well as deferring the ma
tter enabling the petitioners to file their response. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
taking reference to the notice at Annexure-B/4 and the Annexure-A/1 and further the materials
available on record contended that the Tahasildar himself was not sure of the plots involving
the dispute as there appears there is difference in plot numbers in various documents. Learne
d counsel for the petitioners next contended that since the petitioners were already having th
irty years of possession by the time of initiation of the proceeding, there was likelihood of
consideration of their cases under Section 8-A of the O.P.L.E Act. Lastly, taking this Court t
o the observation of the original authority in the O.P.L.E proceeding vide Encroachment Case N
o.947 of 2006-07, Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that when the original
authority had already called for a report from the R.I. to find out the truthness in the alle
gation in the petition being the foundation of initiation of the proceeding, it was incumbent
upon the Tahasildar to first obtain the report to find-out the truthness in the complaint and
then to proceed with the O.P.L.E proceeding initiated against the petitioners. It is for the m
aterial irregularities as well as the legal flaws indicated hereinabove, learned counsel for t
he petitioners contended that the impugned orders passed by the original authority not only be
comes against Law prescribed in the OPLE Act but also suffers on account of material irregular
ities as clearly demonstrated by the petitioners hereinabove. Referring to the memorandum of a
ppeal challenging the original orders, learned counsel for the petitioners also satisfied his
cases that in filing the appeal the petitioners even though raised all the above objections bu
t neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority have taken the above into consi
deration and under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court
for interfering in the impugned orders and setting aside the same.
