Disposed

Sudhakar Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/36013/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari to expedite the pending application for demarcation of the petitioner's land within three months, giving parties an opportunity of hearing, following which demarcation should occur within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahasildar to decide on demarcation application within three months and proceed with demarcation within two months if initiated.

Sudhakar Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.36013 of 2020

¶2

21.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Videoconferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr.P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties 1 to 3.

¶4

The petitioner in this writ petition makes an innocuous payer for early disposal of his application for demarcation of Chaka Khata No.797, Plot No.1490 to an extent of Ac.0.02 decimals in MouzaRahania under Bhandaripokhari Tahasil in the district of Bhadrak (for short ‘the case land’).

¶5

It is submitted by Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, namely, Sarbeswar Tripathy and Uncle, namely, Parameswar Tripathy had filed C.S. No.97 of 1996 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak for permanent injunction. The said suit being dismissed, they filed R.F.A. No.7 of 2008. Learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak vide his

¶6

judgment dated 07.09.2018 allowed the said appeal by restraining opposite party nos.4 and 5 along with one Pradyumna Tripathy from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in question recorded in favour of the petitioner. The opposite party nos.4 and 5 having lost in the appeal have not preferred

¶7

¶8

any Second Appeal before this Court. However, they created disturbance in his possession over the case land for which the petitioner sent an application for demarcation of the case land in proper format to the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari on 21.10.2020 (Annexure-1). The petitioner sent the demarcation application by Registered Post with A.D. because of the fact that due to outbreak of pandemic of COVID19, he was not allowed to enter the office of the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari. It is his submission that the said application is still pending and the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari has not taken any action for demarcation of the case and. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

¶9

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that he has no instruction in the matter. But, the case record reveals that earlier the petitioner moved this Court in CRLMP No.194 of 2020 and taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner therein, the said CRLMP was disposed of on 12.02.2020 with an observation that since a civil dispute is pending for demarcation of the property, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the appropriate forum ventilating his grievances. He further submits that the present demarcation proceeding was filed much after

¶10

¶11

disposal of the said CRLMP No.194 of 2020, which suggests that the demarcation proceeding referred to in the order passed in CRLMP is not the present demarcation case. In that view of the matter, the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari needs to examine the maintainability of the petition for demarcation dated 21.10.2020 as at Annexure-1 stated to have been filed by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari may be directed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and proceed accordingly.

¶12

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari should take a decision on the petition for demarcation dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure-1) stated to have been filed by the petitioner through Registered Post with A.D.

¶13

Accordingly, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari-opposite party no.3 shall do well to take up the petition for demarcation of the case land dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure-1) stated to have been sent by the petitioner through Registered Post along with any other demarcation case in respect of the case land or any adjacent land, if pending before him analogously and take a decision on the same giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as

¶14

¶15

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of the Orissa High Court. If he takes a decision to proceed with the demarcation as prayed for by the petitioner, then the Tahasildar, Bhandaripokhari-opposite party no.3 should proceed with the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months therefrom giving notice to the petitioner as well as boundary tenants to be present at the time of demarcation, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

………………………..

¶19

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶20

Sudhakar Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Tripathy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goura Ch.Sahoo Vs Narayan Behera

Pravati Rout Vs Tarun Ku.Dalai

Harihar Panda Vs Subash Ku.Panda

Laxmimani Nath Vs State of Odisha

Malati Shial Vs State of Odisha

Pranabandhu Sethi Vs State of Odisha