Dismissed

Bishnu Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Nov 2021CRLREV/127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the petitioner sought initiation of eviction proceedings and set aside a SubDivisional Magistrate order. The petitioner subsequently filed a memo stating non-interest in the case. The court dismissed the revision as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The application under Sections 401 and 397 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's withdrawal.

Bishnu Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No. 127 of 2021

¶3

Bishnu Mallick

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. R.C. Behera, Advocate

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Order No. 23.11.2021

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. R.C. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶16

This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. praying for immediate initiation of eviction proceeding against the encroachers-Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 and to set aside the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Cuttack Sadar, Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No.01 of 2021 in a proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

Pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by this Court, the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar has filed an affidavit stating that the Revenue Inspector, Tangi on 26.06.2020 had furnished report in Form No.G intimating the Office of the deponent that un-authorised encroachments have been made on Government Plot Nos. 1185 of Khata No.732 of Village-Ramagarh, P.S. Tangi and four Encroachment Proceedings were initiated vide Encroachment Case Nos.40/2020, 41/2020, 42/2020 and 43/2020

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

under the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar had issued notice to the encroachers in Encroachment Case Nos.40/2020, 41/2020, 42/2020 and 43/2020 on 05.11.2020 to file show cause. On 20.11.2020, the encroachers appeared but did not file any show cause. During pendency of the encroachment proceedings order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-S.D.M., Sadar, Cuttack to evict the encroachers as per provisions under OPLE Act, 1972 was received. Notice was issued to the illegal encroachers on 16.07.2021 to vacate the Govt. land within seven days and another notice was issued on 02.11.2021 to the encroachers. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar physically demolished the structures raised over the alleged Govt. land in presence of Local Police Personnel and villagers on 16.11.2021.

¶21

Probably in view of these developments, in course of hearing, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo stating therein that the petitioner does not want to proceed with the case and files a memo to that effect. The memo be kept on record.

¶22

In view of the above submission, the CRLREV is dismissed as infructuous.

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶24

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

¶25

(Savitri Ratho)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Sukanta

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Bishnu Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Mallick 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

Anshuman Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Lankepalli Raju Vs State of Odisha

Misala Siba Vs State of Odisha

Shaikh Hasib Vs State of Odisha

Jayaprakash Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Nilambar Badamundi Vs State