Disposed

Debendra Mallik v. the Collector, Kendrapara

Orissa HC6 Oct 2020WP(C)/25762/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India's predecessor, the High Court, heard a writ petition by occupants of government land facing encroachment proceedings. The petitioners sought settlement of the land. The Court held that applicants must use the prescribed form for settlement. It permitted the petitioners to file a fresh application in Form-IA before the Tahasildar.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioners to make a fresh application in prescribed Form-IA before the Tahasildar for settlement of the government land.

Debendra Mallik Vs the Collector, Kendrapara — Orissa HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(C) No.25762 of 2020

¶2

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶3

06.10.2020 Mr. S.K. Mallick : For the Petitioners Mr. D.K. Mohanty, A.G.A. : For the State-Opp. Parties

¶4

ORDER

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶6

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to settle the schedule land measuring Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.130 decimals (Homestead) situated over plot No.106, Khata No.177, MouzaBadahalapada, PS-Rajakanika in the district of Kendrapara in their favour.

¶7

The petitioners are in occupation of the aforesaid schedule land, which is recorded in Government khata. Accordingly, encroachment cases have been instituted against the petitioners bearing Encroachment Case No.701 of 2019 dated 26.02.2020, Encroachment Case No.475 of 2018 dated 06.03.2019, Encroachment Case No.232 of 2017 dated 24.11.2017, Encroachment Case No.56 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016, Encroachment Case No.76 of 2007 dated 08.02.2008, Encroachment Case No.1940/2004-05 dated 09.12.2005 and Encroachment Case No.192 of 1990. As such, for such unauthorized occupation of government land, notices were also issued under form “Ka” and penalties have been imposed on the petitioners and they are also paying the same. Subsequently, the petitioners applied for settlement of land in prescribed Form-IA as per the Government Land Settlement

¶8

-2-

¶9

Act and Rules framed thereunder. Since no action has been taken by the authority, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶10

Mr. S.K. Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that due to inaction of the Government in settling the land in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure-4 dated 27.11.2018, the petitioners have approached the Collector, Kendrapara by way of filing representation in Annexure-5. Therefore, direction may be given to the Collector to consider their representation as early as possible.

¶11

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that so far as consideration of Annexure-5 the representation is concerned, the Collector has no occasion to consider the same, when statute requires the applicant should approach the appropriate authority by filing appropriate application in the prescribed form for settlement of the land. If such application is filed in prescribed form, the appropriate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. But in paragraph-7 of the writ petition it has been pleaded that the petitioners applied in the prescribed Form-IA under the Rules, but opposite party-3 did not accept the same. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh application in the prescribed Form-IA for settlement of land as per Rule 5(2) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 before the appropriate authority, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that for settlement of the government land in favour of the petitioners they have to apply in prescribed form. Though reliance has been placed in

¶13

-3-

¶14

Annexure-4, the prescribed form that the petitioners have applied for the same, but it has been admitted in paragraph-7 of the writ petition that the same has not been accepted by the authority. In any case, law prescribes that land has to be settled on the basis of the appropriate application submitted by the person and in case such application is filed, the statutory authority cannot deny the same for its acceptance, rather such application has to be entertained in accordance with law. Thereby, this Court permitted the petitioners to make a fresh application in prescribed Form-IA before the opposite party no.3-Tahasildar, Rajakanika for settlement of the government land contending that they are in occupation of the land. If such application is filed, the Tahasildar concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶17

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶18

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶19

Alok/Ashok

Debendra Mallik v. the Collector, Kendrapara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debendra Mallik v. the Collector, Kendrapara

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

Ghanashyam Panda Vs Chief Secretary and Chief Development Commissioner

Himansu Sekhar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Shivashakti Pujak Samaj Vs Administration Dept.

Asish Kumar Hial Vs Dist. and Session Judge, Nabarangpur

Janakalyana Parisada Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Dey Vs State of Odisha