Allowed

Laxmidhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Feb 2021WP(C)/3357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged notices requiring withdrawal from government land without initiating encroachment proceedings. The single judge held the notices violated natural justice and the Act, allowing the petition and quashing the notices to prevent eviction until due process is followed.

What did the court decide?

Notices (Annexures-1 and 2) quashed; no eviction or demolition allowed until due process of law is followed.

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3357 of 2021

¶3

Laxmidhar Sahoo … Petitioner

¶4

- Versus –

¶5

State of Odisha and others … Opp. Parties

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

09.02.2021 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C.

¶8

Defect No.6, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, has already been removed.

¶9

Defect No.15, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, is ignored.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶11

On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that notice under Annexure-2 was issued to him to withdraw from the encroached Government land of an area of Ac.0.02 decimals out of Plot No.653, Khata No.235 of Mouza-Karadabani, Tahasil-Gondia in the district of Dhenkanal within thirty days without

¶13

¶14

initiation of encroachment proceeding and on the very date of service of notice to show cause as to why action under Sections 4 and 6 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) shall not be initiated against him for encroachment of Government land mentioned therein.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that without initiation of any encroachment proceeding, notice under Annexture-1 was issued directing him to file show cause by remaining present on 22.01.2021 as to why action under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act shall not be initiated, which was served on him on 21.01.2021 and on the same day, the notice under Form-B of the Act was also issued to withdraw from the said land within thirty days, failing which the structure therein shall be removed. The same being violative of the principle of natural justice, liable to be quashed.

¶16

It is not mentioned in which encroachment proceeding the aforesaid order was passed nor it appears from the aforesaid that the petitioner was given any due opportunity of hearing pursuant to Annexure-1. In such premises, I am of the view that notices under Annexures-1 and 2 being contrary to law, i.e., in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and also mandate of the Act, the same are

¶17

¶18

liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the Annexures-1 and 2 are quashed and it is directed that no eviction of the petitioner from the land in question, which is subject matter of notice in the aforesaid annexures or demolition of the structure raised therein without adhering to the due process of law.

¶19

The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶20

………………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶21

Laxmidhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmidhar Sahoo 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

Ganeswar Pradhan Vs Saraswati Pradhan

Akshaya Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Kailash Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrat Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Himansu Sekhar Meher Vs State of Odisha

Jaganath Behera Vs State of Odisha