Justice S. Pujahari dismissed a writ petition challenging the eviction of a landless petitioner from a piece of objectionable government land where authorities followed due process and confirmed the objectionable nature of the plot.
No relief granted. Writ Petition dismissed at the stage of admission.
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.
CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
W.P.(C) No.4091 of 2021
Subash Chandra Mohanty … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha & others … Opp. Parties
O R D E R
2. Heard.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 to record the encroached land in his favour as he is a landless person by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2021 passed in OPLE Revision No.1 of 2020 by the opposite party No.2.
4. As it appears, the petitioner had encroached part of Plot No.69 measuring an area of Ac.0.02 decimals appertaining to Khata No.907 of Revenue Mouza-Falapur, P.S.Dhamnagar, Dist.Bhadrak. The petitioner stated to have constructed dwelling house therein. Since the aforesaid land is a Government land and Rasta in Kisam, an Encroachment Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Encroachment Case No.1632 of 2019-20, wherein
2
the petitioner was asked to show cause on 09.01.2019 before the opposite party No.4Tahasildar, Dhamnagar vide Annexure-1. Thereafter, in the said proceeding, a notice was issued to him under Section 6(1) to withdraw from the encroachment within thirty days thereof.
5. The petitioner challenging the same, preferred an appeal before the opposite party No.3Sub-Collector, Bhadrak vide OPLE Appeal No.147 of 2019. However, the said appeal of the petitioner having been dismissed by opposite party No.3-SubCollector, Bhadrak, the petitioner preferred a revision against the said order claiming settlement of the land in his favour. The said revision having been dismissed with a reasoned order vide Annexure-1, the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition.
6. According to the petitioner, the eviction proceeding was initiated against him without proper enquiry inasmuch as, he had never encroached the land but the land was encroached by one Bairagi Patra, who constructed the house therein. After the death of Bairagi Patra, his daughter namely Tilotama Mohanty possessed the house constructed by her father and the said Tilotama Mohanty gave the petitioner a shelter in the said house. The aforesaid
3
house is also not encroaching the entire Government road as alleged. Hence, the order of eviction, which has been confirmed in the appeal, so also in the revision are liable to be quashed and the petitioner, is entitled to settlement of the land being a landless person.
7. It is not disputed that the land is a Government land presently possessed by the petitioner and the same has been encroached inasmuch as the house is constructed thereon. The land is recorded in the name of Government as ‘Sarbasadharan’ and ‘Rasta’ is Kisam. The land appears to be objectionable in nature. Taking note of the aforesaid in the encroachment proceeding, the petitioner was asked to show cause and eviction order was passed. Thereafter, in the appeal the said order was confirmed. In the revision also the revisional authority, taking note of the aforesaid facts, particularly the objectionable nature of the land, held the land is not settleable in favour of the petitioner and as such dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the opposite party Nos.3 & 4 passed in the Encroachment Proceeding and the appeal. It is never averred that there was any violation of principle of natural justice while deciding the matter and the order was passed
4
without any jurisdiction or while passing the impugned order, the authorities have not followed the procedure prescribed. In such premises, when after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the authority having jurisdiction to pass an order in exercise of their statutory power, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and particularly when the land is objectionable in nature, the writ petition filed seeking the aforesaid relief is devoid of merit.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the stage of ‘Admission’.
9. The parties may utilize the copy of this order in view of the High Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
………………….. S. Pujahari, J.
RKS /SKB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the eviction of the petitioner from objectionable government land was lawful despite his claim of landlessness and lack of procedural violation.
Subash Chandra Mohanty
State of Odisha
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
