Disposed

Sibaram Panda v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC13 Aug 2020WP(C)/14011/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During the COVID-19 lockdown, this Court addressed a writ petition challenging eviction notices. The Court held that issuing individual show-cause notices complies with natural justice. It granted time to petitioners to file show-cause and stayed eviction pending disposal. The petition was disposed of without directing land settlement.

What did the court decide?

Estate Officer shall accept show-cause within four weeks; eviction stayed pending disposal of the proceedings. Writ petition disposed of.

Sibaram Panda Vs State of Orissa — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2020

¶3

Sibaram Panda & others.

¶4

…….. Petitioners

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others.

¶7

…….. Opp.parties

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

13.08.2020 In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case

¶10

is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶11

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶12

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus with a prayer to quash the notices to show-cause under Annexures-5 series issued to them in different proceedings under the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” in short) by the Estate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Balangir and direct the opposite parties for settlement of land in their favour.

¶13

¶14

4. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that Plot No.1286, Khata No.277 of Mouza- Balangir “Ga” under the Balangir Tahasil in the district of Balangir was in occupation of the petitioners and others. Part of Sabik Plot No.1983 measuring an area of Ac.7.990 decimals, Kisam- Nazul land and recorded as “Adarsha Bagicha” belonging to the State Government. However, one Debaraj Nag and Johan Nag were possessing the land since 1950 and developed the same and remained in possession for more than 30 years and, as such, they had perfected title over the same, as revealed in Yadast prepared during the settlement in the year 1975. Thereafter, the said Debaraj Nag sold different parts of the said land to different persons on receipt of consideration by executing agreements and delivered possession of the lands mentioned therein and the petitioners are some of such purchasers. Such agreements have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-2 series. The petitioners after taking possession of the said land pursuant to such agreement, have constructed houses in different parts of the said plots and are in peaceful

¶15

¶16

possession since 35 years and they have also been issued with the Ration Card, Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card with the address of their houses therein, so also supply with power connection to the said houses. Besides that, water supply and street lights in their residential locality have also been provided by the Government. Therefore, a ‘Basti’ has been developed therein where more than eighty families are living and the Government of Odisha in H & U.D. Department had made survey under the provision of Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules, 2017) for settlement of the said land in their favour and the cards in this regard have already been issued to them. While the matter stood thus, for expansion of the Rajendra College of Balangir, the Government of Odisha in recent past decided to evict the petitioners from there and, as such, issued impugned show-cause notices for their eviction in different proceedings under the Rules framed under the Act.

¶17

5. From the notice, as it appears, the same is required for construction of Science Park of Rajendra

¶18

¶19

University, but as it appears from Annexure-4 series, Government had also earlier decided to alienate 26 number of plots appertaining to Khata No.277 and 5 number of plots appertaining to Khata No.279 of the said revenue village -Balangir “Ga” which is adjacent to the college campus to the said College, but without proceeding with the same, notices under Annexure-5 series have been issued to the petitioners for the said purposes, though the petitioners are in settled possession in the same and are entitled to settlement under the USHA Scheme inasmuch as they have been issued the Survey Cards for the purpose.

¶20

6. The aforesaid action of the authority being illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the land is located in a faraway place, i.e., 3 K.M. from the College premises and intervened by a public road, as such, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging such notices to show-cause on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. With the aforesaid pleading, the petitioners have sought for the relief, as stated hereinbefore.

¶21

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing notice of this Court to the fact that for taking possession of the aforesaid land by the petitioners, no public notice was given inviting objection and showcause as was done for taking possession of land in Khata Nos.277 and 279 vide Annexure-4 series, hence the initiation of the proceeding of eviction under the Act and asking them to show-cause is illegal and arbitrary in the absence of such notice and, as such, liable to be quashed. Since the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and card under USHA Scheme have already been issued to them, they are entitled for settlement the said land in their favour. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits to issue notice and stay further proceeding, and after verifying the materials on record and hearing the parties, quash the impugned notices and to direct the opposite parties to settle the land in their favour.

¶23

8. The same is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State.

¶24

¶25

9. From the materials on record and also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the land is public premises being under Balangir Municipal area. The same being admittedly is in occupation of the petitioners, according to the State, such occupation being unauthorized one, and required for the purpose of Rajendra University, as such, the opposite party no.1-State decided to evict the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the individual notices have been issued to the petitioners, who are in occupation of different parcels of land of the said plot, vide Annexure-5 series. The petitioners assail the same on the ground that in the absence of the public notice inviting objection and suggestion as done for alienation of land as mentioned vide Annexure-4 series which is in respect of some lands adjacent to Rajendra University, the initiation of the proceeding against them is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also violation of the principle of natural justice and, as such, liable to be quashed. Such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be fallacious. The public notice

¶26

¶27

at Annexure-4 relates to an alienation proceeding of some land under the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act and the Rules made thereunder. But, the petitioners’ case is not under the said Act and Rules and their case is under the Act, i.e., the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and the Rules made thereunder which never mandate public notice prior to initiation of proceeding under the Act, but only mandates that before eviction of any person in unauthorized occupation of any public premises is required to be given a notice by the Estate Officer to show-cause and after hearing the parties and following the procedure thereof, if it is found that they are in unauthorized occupation they are required to be evicted. The aforesaid is statutory mandate which is to comply with the principle of audi alteram partem and also address the contention, if any, of the persons in unauthorized occupation that they are not liable for eviction. The procedure prescribed having been followed in the proceedings, the initiation of the eviction proceeding against the petitioners, as such, does not violate the principle of natural justice in any

¶28

¶29

manner nor the same is illegal and discriminatory one in any manner. The petitioners have also come to challenge the notice to show-cause in the midst of the proceeding which has been initiated by a statutory authority prima-facie having jurisdiction under the statute. Hence, the notice to them being not incompetent and, therefore, on the grounds stated, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition challenging the same.

¶30

10. However, if the petitioners have filed their showcause and participated in the proceeding, it is open to them to raise their contention that they are not entitled for eviction as they have remained in settled possession of land in the said proceeding which be addressed in accordance with law. Furthermore, if the petitioners have not filed any show-cause yet within a time stipulated, in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances, i.e., due to spread of Covid-19, the normal life and functioning of different statutory authorities has been severely impacted, the Estate Officer shall accept the show-cause, if filed within four weeks hence by the petitioners and then proceed with

¶31

¶32

the proceeding in accordance with law.

¶33

It is made clear that if the proceedings in respect of the present petitioners have not been concluded by today (13.08.2020), the Estate Officer must await for riling of the show-cause by the petitioners within the aforesaid period and shall proceed thereafter and pending disposal of the proceedings, the petitioners shall not be evicted.

¶34

11. With the aforesaid order, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶36

………………… S.Pujahari, J.

¶37

RKS/ DA/ MRS

¶38

Sibaram Panda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibaram Panda 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

Fagu Behera Vs State of Odisha

Kalucharan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Alok Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Amulya Ojha Vs State of Odisha

Rankanidhi Behera Vs State of Odisha

Anuj Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha