Disposed

Pramod Kumar Ray v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Orissa HC27 Apr 2021WP(C)/14439/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demarcation order. After the parties successfully mediated and settled to remeasure the land jointly, the Court directed the Tahasildar to conduct the measurement per the settlement, allowing parties to appoint private Amins, and complete the exercise within six months adhering to COVID-19 protocols.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; directed Tahasildar to measure land per settlement with private Amins present, notify all boundary tenants, and complete within six months.

Pramod Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.14439 of 2017

¶2

This matter is taken up through video

¶3

conferencing mode.

¶4

27.04.2021

¶5

Heard Mr. Debasis Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3(a) to 3(c).

¶6

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 11.07.2017 (Annexure-8) passed by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai in Demarcation Case No.57 of 2016, wherein the Tahasildar, Pattamundai directed the petitioner to vacate his possession over the land in question, more fully described in the appendix to the order under Annexure-8.

¶7

Taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties and the nature of dispute, this Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 passed the following order:-

¶8

“In course of hearing, a joint memo dated 23^rd March, 2021 has been filed in Court today by learned counsel for the parties praying to send the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court for mediation to resolve the dispute amicably between the parties. The same be taken on record.

¶9

In view of the memo filed, the matter is sent to the Mediation Centre of this Court for settlement of the dispute amicably between the parties. The report of the Mediator shall be submitted within a period of one month.”

¶10

Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of the Orissa High Court and after

¶11

¶12

mediation, a report has been submitted by the learned Mediator, which reads as follows:

¶13

“MEDIATION REPORT

¶14

23.04.2021

¶15

In obligation to direction of this Hon’ble Court mediation process on dated 09/04/2021, 15/04/2021 and final mediation held today, i.e., 23/04/2021 in the High Court of Orissa Mediation Centre.

¶16

During all sittings of mediation proceeding several attempts were made to resolve the dispute between the parties by adopting all the A.D.R. mechanism.

¶17

As per the decision of the previous sittings, today the parties along with their learned counsels are present. After discussion the parties have settled their dispute amicably on the following terms and conditions.

¶18

1. That the parties are agreed for remeasurement of their respective lands by an Amin to be deputed by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai on a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶19

2. That it is agreed between the parties that the said measurement will be held in presence of the parties, their learned counsels and one private amin from each side.

¶20

3. That after measurement the amin thus deputed by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai shall submits the report in a sealed cover to the Hon’ble Court for taking appropriate decision by this Hon’ble Court for final disposal of the present writ application.

¶21

4. That all the parties agreed that the decisions which will be taken by this Hon’ble Court will be binding on the parties, their heirs, successors and legal representatives and none of the parties shall

¶22

¶23

create any disturbances over the land of other in future.

¶24

Considering the settlement arrived at by the parties, I think it proper to close the mediation proceeding with the report that the Mediation is successful.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the parties submit that let the matter be demarcated keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and a report be submitted to this Court for further orders.

¶26

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, however, submits that let the demarcation be made strictly following the guidelines and protocol of COVID-19 issued by the State Government from time to time.

¶27

Keeping in view the submission of the parties and the Mediation report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the land in question should be demarcated by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶28

Although it is agreed upon between the parties that the report of the Tahasildar, Pattamundai should be submitted to this Court in a sealed cover for taking appropriate decision in the matter, but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute, this Court does not feel it necessary to keep the matter pending for further consideration in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the measurement of the land in question shall be done by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai giving notice to the petitioner, opposite party Nos.3(a) to 3(c) and other boundary tenants. Each of the parties to the writ petition are free to engage one private Amin of their own choice to assist them at the time of demarcation. It is further directed that if any party is aggrieved by the demarcation report of the Tahasildar, Pattamundai, he is at liberty to seek remedy available to him under law.

¶31

It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order adhering to the COVID-19 guidelines and protocol issued by the State Government from time to time. Parties are directed to cooperate with the Tahasildar, Pattamundai and his officials and staff for the demarcation

¶32

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 25th March, 202s0 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.

¶33

……..……………………

¶34

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶35

bct

Pramod Kumar Ray v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Ray v. State of Odisha and Ors.

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

Sadhu Mallick @Sadhu Vs Ganesh Pr.Mallik

Satyabhama Sahoo Vs Commnr.of Consolidn.

Kirtan Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Das Vs Kali Das

Sudhanshu @ Sudhansu Kumar Dutta Vs Pankaj Kumar Dutta

Premananda Mohanty Vs State Govt.,Dhenkanal