Dismissed

Debananda Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Oct 2020WP(C)/21373/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that it was not inclined to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as an efficacious statutory appeal lay under Section 12 of the OPLE Act. The petition was dismissed, but eviction notice stayed for six weeks to enable filing of a Section 12(4) application for interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; eviction notice stayed for six weeks to facilitate appeal application under Section 12(4) of OPLE Act.

Debananda Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 21373 of 2020

¶2

05.10.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr.Subodh Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sakti Prasad Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite parties.

¶4

Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the notice No.1302 dated 29.07.2020 issued under Rule6(1) of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Rules, 1985 read with Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 in Encroachment Case No.108 of 2020 under Annexure-1.

¶5

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner being a landless person is occupying a piece of government land situated over plot No.3953 under Khata No.272, measuring an area Ac.0.01 decimal in Mouza Sarangalui, Kisam ‘Bagayat-2’ under Laikera Tahasil (for short, ‘case land’) in the district of Jharsuguda since last 24 years and is staying thereon by constructing a thatched house over said plot. 5. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No.3-Tahasildar, Laikera has issued the eviction notice dated 29.07.2020 under Annexure-1 under Rule-6(1) of the OPLE Rules, 1985 without issuing the notice under Form-A to show cause for alleged unauthorized occupation of government land, for which the petitioner is before this Court.

¶6

Mr.Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since notice under Rule 6(1) has

¶7

-2-

¶8

already been issued of the OPLE Rules, 1985, petitioner can avail the alternate remedy by way of filing appeal under Section 12 of the said Act. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has straightway knocked the door of this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, which should not be exercised in view of availability of efficacious statutory provision of appeal.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of provision of statutory appeal under Section 12 of the OPLE Act, 1972, this Court is not inclined to invoke its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petition with the observation that in case such an appeal is filed assailing the order of eviction passed against the petitioner within a period four weeks hence, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶10

7.1 For a period of six weeks, the impugned eviction notice shall be kept in abeyance so far as it relates to possession of the petitioner over the case land to enable him to move an application under Section 12(4) of the OPLE Act for interim order.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

………………………… K.R.Mohapatra, J.

Debananda Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debananda Sahu 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

Nural Haque.Sahoo Vs C.R.P.F. and Ors.

Mrutyunjay Jena Vs State of Odisha

Mahavir Prasad Ram Vs Commissioner of Consolidaton

Deepak Kumar Mohanty Vs Susmita Ray

Premalata Barik Vs the Union of India

Santosh Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha