Disposed

Binod Kumar Das v. the Tahasildar Mahanga

Orissa HC11 Dec 2020WP(C)/10719/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking directions for registration and demarcation of land recorded as a 'Rasta'. Court disposed of the petition by directing petitioners to file a fresh application with requisite fee and documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file a fresh application for demarcation within two weeks with requisite fee and documents; subsequent consideration within four months.

Binod Kumar Das Vs the Tahasildar Mahanga — Orissa HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10719 of 2020

¶2

11.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Jagadip Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party.

¶4

The petitioners in this writ petition pray for a direction for registration of the application for demarcation of the land in Khata No. 181, Plot No.121 kissam Gharabari recorded in the name of their ancestor.

¶5

It is submitted by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners that the residential house of the petitioners situates over Khata No.181, Plot No.121 kissam Gharabari in mouza- Nadiasahaspur in the district of Cuttack. The adjacent land, i.e., Plot No.123, Khata No.320 to an extent of Ac.0.060 decimals has been recorded as a ‘Rasta’, over which the easementary right of the petitioners have been declared in C.S. No.131 of 2016. After passing of the decree, the petitioners are facing problem in using that land as it has been encroached by the boundary tenants and they are creating disturbance in the use of the said road. Although the Tahasildar, Mahanga has accepted the demarcation petition but has not registered the same and is not taking any step for demarcation of the aforesaid land, which is recorded as ‘Rasta’.

¶6

¶7

In that view of the matter, the petitioners have filed the writ petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶8

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that he has no instruction as to whether the petitioners have filed any Demarcation Case or not. He, however, submits that if Tahasildar, Mahanga has accepted the demarcation case, he should register the same and proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

¶9

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposes of this writ petition with a direction that in the event the petitioners file a fresh application in proper format along with requisite fee and other relevant documents for demarcation of the aforesaid land recorded as ‘Rasta’, within a period of two weeks hence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such application, if there is no legal impediment.

¶10

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶11

..………………………….

¶12

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶13

bct

¶14

¶15

bct

Binod Kumar Das v. the Tahasildar Mahanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Das v. the Tahasildar Mahanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tuni Behera Vs State of Odisha

Laxmipriya Singh Vs Lalat Kishore Singh

Sanjay Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Lochana Samantara Vs the Tahasildar, Banpur

Lalit Mahanandia@Buda Vs the Collector,Sundargarh

Dibakar Rout Vs State of Odisha