Allowed

Padma Charan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Jun 2021WP(C)/10173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a representation for government land. The court directed the Tahasildar to recall a final order and treat the representation as a petition under Section 7 of the OPLE Act, requiring specific findings on the petitioner's entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Recall of final order in OPLE Case No.17 of 2018 and direction to treat the representation as a petition under Section 7 of the OPLE Act with specific findings within three months.

Padma Charan Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.10173 OF 2021

¶2

23.06.2021

¶3

This matter is taken up by virtual mode. Heard.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to record the Government land vide Plot No.719 under Khata No.96 measuring an area Ac.0.052 decimal out of Ac.1.619 decimal, Mouza- Tiparigan in the district of Kandhamal.

¶5

In this regard, the petitioner is stated to have filed a representation vide Annexure- 8 before the Tahasildar, Tikabali- Opposite Party No.4.

¶6

Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the final order having been passed and fine having been imposed against the petitioner in Encroachment Case No.17 of 2018, the representation vide Annexure-8 is not maintainable now. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohapatra that the Tahasildar, Tikabali - Opposite Party No.4, if thought proper, could have referred the matter to the Sub-Collector for settlement of land and in that event, the Sub-Collector would have acted U/S. 8(A) of the OPLE Act. That having not been done and there being no provision of review, the present representation U/S. 8 is not maintainable.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a landless person and he is in possession of the land since 30 years.

¶8

In view of such fact, the Tahasildar, Tikabali- Opposite Party No.4 should have at least recorded a finding as to why he did not think it proper to settle the land in favour of the petitioner U/S. 7 of the OPLE Act.

¶9

In view of the averments made by the petitioner, such a finding by the Tahasildar, Tikabali was mandatory.

¶10

Regard being had to such facts and submissions, the writ application is disposed of directing the Tahasildar, Tikabali- Opposite Party No.4 to recall the final order passed in OPLE Case No.17 of 2018 and take up the representation vide Annexure- 8 as a petition filed U/S. 7 of the OPLE Act. The Tahasildar, Tikabali- Opposite Party No.4 is further directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, by giving a specific finding as to why the petitioner is not entitled to be settled with the land U/S. 7 of the Act.

¶11

The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy or true soft copy of this order available in the Orissa High Court website.

¶12

The petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the writ application containing all the Annexures to the Opposite party No.4 for convenience & reference to Annexure – 8.

¶13

The writ application is accordingly

¶14

disposed of.

¶15

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶16

………………………….

¶17

C.R. Dash, J.

¶18

Subha

Padma Charan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Charan Nayak 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

Parakhita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Soudamini Parida Vs the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha

Arakhita Sahu Vs Collector, Kalahandi

Hara Prasad Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Madhav Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bhagabata Moharana Vs the Tahasildar, Niali