Dismissed

Dinabandhu Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Dec 2020WP(C)/8642/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the strength of a prior order by the Tahasildar postponing demarcation finalization due to pending revision cases, the High Court held no matter required adjudication. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, preserving the petitioners' right to take further legal steps.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as nothing remains to be adjudicated following the Tahasildar's order.

Dinabandhu Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 8642 OF 2019

¶2

07.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Behera, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.3 & 4 and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-opp. parties 1 and 2.

¶4

The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for a direction to the Tahasildar, Tihidi not to initiate the demarcation case in respect of the lands pertaining to consolidation Khata Nos. 315, 234 and 235 during pendency of R.C. Case Nos. 111 and 15 of 2019 filed under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’), which are pending before the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Balasore for correction of R.O.R. and Hal Map.

¶5

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the aforesaid revision cases, the Tahasildar, Tihidi is proceeding with Demarcation Case No. 19 of 2019 for which the petitioners are constrained to file this writ petition.

¶6

Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4 vehemently objected to the submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have no cause of action for filing of this writ petition. He further submits that pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court dated 16.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 11404 of 2018, when the demarcation case was initiated, the petitioners have filed

¶7

¶8

the aforesaid two revision cases, which is an afterthought. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶9

Miss Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State referring to paragraph-5 of the writ petition, wherein the order dated 16.03.2019 of the Tahasildar, Tihidi is quoted, submits that in view of pendency of R.C. Case No.15 of 2019 before the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Balasore, the Tahasildar, Tihidi has directed to postpone the finalization of the aforesaid demarcation case.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly in view of order dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Tahasildar, Tihidi, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶11

However, dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

bks

¶15

Dinabandhu Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinabandhu 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

Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. Vs Collector and District Magistrate,Jajpur

Anil Kumar Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Puranjan Maity Vs the Sub-Collector, Balasore

Deokaran Bagh@Khadia Vs Parbati Bagh@Khadia

Magashira Bachha Vs Arakhita Sahu