Disposed

Jayachandra Meher v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Dec 2019WP(C)/22585/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while a pending inquiry by a Sub-Collector remands a land case to the Tahasildar, the Tahasildar cannot issue an eviction notice. It directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within three months after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the pending encroachment case by hearing all parties within three months and prohibited issuance of any threatened eviction notice.

Jayachandra Meher Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 22585 of 2019

¶2

05.12.2019 Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application challenging the notice dated 15.10.2019 issued by the Tahasildar, Ulunda in Encroachment Case No.239 of 2015 vide Annexure-7.

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the land since long and constructed a residential house thereon for which eviction proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Tahasildar. Against the order of eviction, the petitioner preferred appeal which was disposed of, vide order dated 24.12.2016, by the Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur remanding the matter to the Tahasildar to conduct proper inquiry regarding the status of the encroacher and dispose of the same within a reasonable period on proper appreciation of facts with confirmation of provision. After the remand was made vide order dated 24.12.2016, the Tahasildar instead of disposing of the same, issued notice for eviction, for which the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18037 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2018, with the following directions:

¶5

“Considering this submission of Shri P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, this Court observes, in the event, the O.P.L.E. proceeding involving the present petitioners are still pending, the Tahasildar, Ulunda shall do well in taking into account the application for settlement of the land at the instance of the petitioners, if any, and will dispose of the same after entering into necessary inquiry as required under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act. In the Section 8-A proceeding the Tahasildar, Ulunda

¶6

¶7

shall also enquire as to whether, the petitioners are landless persons in the State of Odisha or in the particular area. It is further directed that in the event, the proceedings involving the petitioners are still pending and the petitioners are still in occupation over the disputed land in question, status quo as on today in respect of the disputed property, shall be maintained by the parties till disposal of the OPLE proceeding involved herein.”

¶8

It is contended that the Tahasildar is not disposing of the matter after remand by the Sub-Collector vide order dated 24.12.2016 till today despite the order dated 10.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.18037 of 2018 and, as such, threaten action for eviction notice has been issued vide notice under Annexure-7. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶9

Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that he has no instruction in the matter at this moment whether the Tahasildar acted upon the remand order made by the Sub-Collector or not. As such, if the remand has been made, instead of giving eviction notice, the Tahasildar may dispose of the encroachment case pending before it in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

¶10

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since remand has been made by the Sub-Collector, vide order dated 24.12.2016, which is pending for adjudication, as stated by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, during pendency of the same, the Tahasildar could not have issued threatened notice for eviction against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tahasildar ought to have passed final order by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. But, it is emphatically submitted that the

¶11

¶12

Tahasildar has not passed any order, rather he is threatening the petitioner for eviction from the unauthorized occupation, as alleged.

¶13

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that if the matter is still pending for adjudication, after remand was made by Sub-Collector on 24.12.2016, the same should be disposed of by the Tahasildar by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either of the party. Needless to say that no threatened notice shall be issued against the petitioner till disposal of the case of the petitioner, which is pending before the Tahasildar within the time specified above.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶16

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

¶17

....……………………...

¶18

Ajaya

Jayachandra Meher v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayachandra Meher 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

Ballav Charan Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Sukanti Meher Vs State of Orissa

G.Dilip Ku.Patra Vs State and Ors.

Dillip Ku.Mohanty Vs Vc,Utkal University

Kumudini Harijan Vs State

Ranjan Ku.Pratihari Vs State and Ors.