Dismissed

Niranjan Routray v. State

Orissa HC10 Dec 2018WP(C)/10569/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition seeking to cancel a de-notification and direct immediate distribution of Record-of-Rights for village Konark was dismissed. The court accepted the respondent's explanation regarding fraudulent title claims and pending appeals/injunctions causing the delay, directing petitioners to file replies for consideration within four months.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing de-notification and directing distribution of Record-of-Rights was dismissed; petitioners directed to file reply within time limit.

Niranjan Routray Vs State — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.10569 of 2006 & Misc. Case No.9420 of 2006

¶2

15. 10.12.2018

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

¶5

“1. Admit this writ application.

¶6

2. To the kind enough to cancel and quash the illegal De-notification dt.1.6.06 vide Annexure-2 and save the tenants of village-Konarak for harassment.

¶7

3. (A) . Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the denotification dt.1.6.06 vide Annexure-2 shall not be cancelled & quashed and the opp. Parties shall not be directed to distribute the copies of the finally published settlement R.O.R. the ‘pattas’ to the tenants of village-konark immediately.

¶8

B) The Opp. Parties may kindly be restrained from furtherance of their common intention to proceed further in their work after such Denotification.

¶9

C) And if the opp. Parties, do not show cause or show insufficient cause then cancel the aforesaid De-notification and issue a direction to distribute the Record-of-Rights the ‘Pattas’ as per the khatian maintained in the offices of O.P.no.4 and O.P.no.5 for the above villageKonark forth with and distribute the R.O.R. within a short stipulated time as the Hon’ble Court would deem fit and proper in bonafide interest of justice.”

¶10

Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos.1 to 5, more particularly Paragraphs-10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said

¶11

-2-

¶12

counter affidavit which are quoted hereunder, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter.

¶13

“10. That in reply to the averments made in para-4 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that, at the stage of Attestation and Draft Publication and Objection Hearing (DP & OH) under the provisions of O S & S Act, 1958, it was noticed that a good nos. of tenants have managed to record Govt. lands in their favour by production of illegal and fabricated documents and fraud Tenant Ledger which should have been taken into account by the concerned Asst. Settlement Officer during operation of Rent Camp and their claims should have been rejected. In fact, acres of Govt. land have been erroneously recorded in the name of private persons during the above stage of settlement operation.

¶14

In the aforesaid circumstances, in order to protect the interest of the Govt., suo motu (Badar) cases have been instituted by the S.O. as provided under rule, for which the rent rolls could not be sanctioned by OP No.4 and 5 and Draft Khatian could not be published.

¶15

11. That in reply to the averments made in para-8 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that, the Rent Roll could not be sanctioned by the Authority as acres of Govt. land were found enlisted in the name of private persons during the draft stage of settlement operation by means of forged and fabricated documents. Therefore, suo-motu cases were instituted to effect correction of the errors by giving adequate opportunity of being heard to all concerned.

¶16

12. That in reply to the averments made in para-9 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that, so far village Konark is concerned, at present 5 nos. of W.P.(C) and OJC cases are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein stay orders have been passed by the Hon’ble High Court in respect of the some of the suit lands. Besides, 13 nos. of OSS cases filed before the Hon’ble Member, Board of Revenue under section 32 of the OSS Act have been

¶17

-3-

¶18

remanded for hearing. Similarly 12 nos. of appeal cases filed by various tenants before the court of Additional Sub-Collector are pending for disposal. Due to such unwanted predicaments, the process of final publication and distribution of Record-of-Rights has been delayed.

¶19

13. That in reply to the averments made in para-11 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that, the Hon’ble High Court has made interim orders of status quo/stay orders in Misc. Case No.7437/2000 arising out of OJC No.5747/2000, Misc. Case No.20402/2013 arising out of WP(C) No.22145/13, Misc. Case No.18128/2013 arising out of WP(C) No.19717/13, Misc. Case No.18129/13 arising out of WP(C) No.19718/13, Misc. Case No.18130/13 out of WP(C) No.19719/13. Besides 25 nos. of appeal cases are pending for disposal before the court of Additional SubCollector i.e. Opposite party no.5 out of which there are stay orders of Hon’ble High Court in 09 number of cases. Resultantly, the final publication of ROR of mouza konark has been delayed.”

¶20

However, it is open for the petitioners to file appropriate reply before the authority and fight out the case on the merit. If such reply is filed, the authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of such reply along with this order.

¶21

Interim order dated 16.8.2006 stands vacated.

¶22

The writ petition and Misc. Case stand disposed of.

¶23

.……..........………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶24

……………….…….. ( K.R.Mohapatra ) Judge

¶25

Niranjan Routray v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Routray v. State

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

Pabitra Mohan Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Radheshyam Vs State

Engineer-in-Chief Vs Narayan Ch.Samantar

Sunarimunda Surakhya Vs State

Mahe Afroj Begum Vs Govt.of Odisha andORS

Umesh Choudhury Vs State and Ors.