Partly allowed

Bada Sambaru@Sambaru Malik v. Collector,Ganjam

Orissa HC16 Jul 2021WP(C)/17400/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe, challenged road construction on land settled under TALA Rules. Court dismissed substantive opinion but directed Block Development Officer to decide pending grievance within six weeks while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

The Block Development Officer directed to decide the pending grievance petition dated 24.02.2021 within six weeks and maintain status quo over the settled land until disposal.

Bada Sambaru@Sambaru Malik Vs Collector,Ganjam — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17400 OF 2021

¶3

Bada Sambaru@ Sambaru Malik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Panda, Advocate -versus-

¶6

…. Collector, Ganjam and others Opp. Parties Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

16.07.2021

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶14

This writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the Block Development Officer, Digapahandi-Opposite Party No.3 in constructing a road over the land, i.e. Plot No.19 under Khata No.7 in Mouza-Damanapadara under Digapahandi Tahasil in the District of Ganjam (for short ‘the case land’), which has been settled in the name of the Petitioner by the District Level Committee under Rule 8 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition and Forest Right) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’).

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel that the Petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe person has been settled with the case land under Rule 8 of the Rules by the District Level Committee under Annexure-1. After being so settled, the Petitioner made it fit for agriculture and is earning his livelihood from the said land. At such a juncture, the Block Development Officer proposed to construct a road over the case land under the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

MGNREGA Scheme for which the Petitioner made a grievance petition before him on 24^th February, 2021 (Annexure-2). It is his submission that although the Block Development Officer, Digapahandi upon receipt of the representation stopped construction of the road temporarily but, in view of the fact that the grievance of the Petitioner is yet to be redressed, he is apprehending dispossession at any moment. As such, finding no other alternative, he has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Mr. Mund, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that he has no instruction in the matter. However, if the representation of the Petitioner is still pending with the Block Development Officer, Digapahandi, he may do well to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶20

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the Block Development Officer, Digapahandi-Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the grievance petition/representation dated 24^th February, 2021 as at Annexure-2 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order, if the same is still pending and communicate the order to the Petitioner forthwith.

¶21

Status quo in all respects over the case land shall be maintained till disposal of such representation.

¶22

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

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,2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶27

Judge

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Bada Sambaru@Sambaru Malik v. Collector,Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bada Sambaru@Sambaru Malik v. Collector,Ganjam

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

Sanjib Kumar Nayak Vs Lingaraj Sahoo

Gopal Das Agrawal Vs Collector, Sundargarh

Rati Harijan@ Dhangadamajhi Vs State of Odisha

O.S.R.T.C. Vs Arss Bus Terminal Pvt. Ltd.

Dy Manager(Commerce)Tpcodl Vs Pramod Kumar Behera

Rabindra Nath Nayak Vs the Commnr. Lr and S, Odisha