Petitioner challenged delay in settlement of acquired land under the OPLE Act. The Court dismissed the writ application, finding no inclination to interfere at this stage.
Writ application dismissed; no direction granted for immediate steps on the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO.36062 of 2020
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).
The Petitioner by filing this writ application has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 to take immediate steps on the petition under section 8(A) of the OPLE Act as at Annexure-3.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Govt. Advocate.
Keeping in view the submission made, the averments taken in the petition being perused, it is seen that for the unauthorized occupation of the land in question Encroachment Case Nos. 221 of 2006, 446 of 2003 and 2274 of 2005 have been initiated against this Petitioner in different years and therefore, the Petitioner having been filed a petition under section-8(A) of the OPLE Act before the Opposite Party No.3 (Tahasildar, Bonai) to settle the suit land in his favour on the ground that his possession for more than 30 years, the same is still pending.
Presently, the grievance of the Petitioner is that although he has filed an application under section 8-A of the OPLE Act seeking settlement of the land in question in his possession, the same is pending for consideration and no decision has been taken on that. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and has no land of his own.
It is provided in section 8-A of the OPLE Act that in course of a proceeding for eviction against any person unauthorizedly occupying any land if the authority finds possession of that person to be actual, continuous and undisputed for more than thirty years prior to the initiation of the proceeding, the case can be taken up for settlement of the said land in favour of said person provided he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the relevant rules and the guidelines issued in that regard from time to time.
Moreover, the kissam of land also appears to be objectionable for the purpose of the settlement.
For all the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application.
Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
…………………
Aks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should entertain a writ application seeking direction for settlement of land under section 8(A) of the OPLE Act given pending status of application and objectionable land size?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
