Disposed

Bharati Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Oct 2020WP(C)/17618/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Tahasildar to treat an application for land conversion filed under the OLR Act as one under the OSS Rules and forward it to the Collector for consideration by the Jalasaya Committee within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed to register the application under Section 8(A) of OLR Act as under Rule 34(e) of OSS Rules and place it before the Jalasaya Committee.

Bharati Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.17618 of 2020

¶2

02. 14.10.2020

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Mr.Sisir Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bidesh Ranjan Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶5

Grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is with regard to non-conversion of Hal Plot No.700, Hal Khata No.375/579 corresponding to Sabak Plot No.700, Sabak Khata No.290, Mouza: Uttar Tulsipur (Unit-7), measuring an area Ac.0.049 decimal (for short ‘case land’) over which her residential house stands, from ‘Jalasaya kisam’ to ‘Gharabari’, which she had purchased vide RSD No.5046 dated 27.09.2006 and RSD No.330 dated 19.01.2007 and has mutated in her name.

¶6

Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case land is of ‘Jalasaya kisam’, she filed application under Rule-8(A) of the OLR Act, 1960 before the competent authority for conversion of the kisam of the case land vide Misc. Conversion Case No.16/2020. It is his submission that although the said case is pending since 2016 no step has been taken by opposite party No.5Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar to act in accordance with order dated 11.10.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.8797 of 2004 and OJC No.6721 of 1999. It is further submitted that in terms of the said order, the Tahasidar, Cuttack Sadar after making a preliminary enquiry should have forwarded the matter to the Collector, Cuttack, who in turn should placed the matter before the Committee constituted under the

¶7

¶8

Chairmanship of Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion. The Committee is competent to take a decision with regard to conversion of the land. Since no step has been taken, the petitioner has no other alternative than to file the present writ petition.

¶9

Mr.Behera, learned ASC submits that from the application filed by the petitioner for conversion of the land, it appears that the same has been filed under Section 8(A) of the OLR Act, 1960, but in terms of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Rule 34(e) Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 so that it can be considered by the Committee. If the petitioner files an application under Rule-34(e) of OSS Rules, 1962, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has already filed an application for conversion of the case land in OLR Conversion Case of 16/2020 vide Annexure-3 before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack-opposite party No.5, who is also the authority to receive the application under Rule 34(e) of the OSS Rules, 1962. Application so filed under Section 8(A) of the OLR Act should have been treated as an application under Rule 34(e) of OSS Rules, 1962 and the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar should take appropriate steps for placing the matter before the Jalasaya Committee constituted in accordance with direction of this Court in writ petitions

¶11

¶12

stated (supra). Accordingly, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar shall do well to register the application filed under Section 8(A) of the OLR Act (Misc. Conversion Case No.16 of 2020) as one under Rule-34(e) of the OSS Rules, 1962 and proceed accordingly to place the matter before the Collector, Cuttack (OP No.3), within a period of two months and the Collector, Cuttack in turn shall do well to take up the matter and place the same before the Jalasaya Committee expeditiously following due procedure of law.

¶13

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

¶14

6.2 An 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.

¶15

.................................

¶16

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶17

¶18

Bharati Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Sahoo 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haraprasad Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Shree Jagannath Expressways Pvt. Ltd. (Sjepl) Vs State of Odisha

Purna Chandra Behera Vs Budhiram Behera

Binod Pradhan Vs Secretary, Odisha State Housing Board

Sanjukta Kumari Devi Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others

Anjali Behera Vs Sarat Chandra Patra