Disposed

Maya Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2021WP(C)/4524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a landless lady residing on the land, challenged an encroachment case initiated by the Tahasildar. The court refused to entertain the writ application but observed that the grievance regarding land settlement should be raised before the Tahasildar within ten days for proper consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with observation to approach Tahasildar for land settlement within ten days.

Maya Jena Vs State of Odisha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO. 4524 OF 2021

¶2

02. 15.04.2021

¶3

The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶4

The Petitioners by filing this writ application has prayed for declare the initiation of the Encroachment Case No.1891 of 2019 by the Opposite Party No.3-Tahasildar, Khallikote in connection with the land appertaining to Khata No.487, Plot No.1401 in mouza Balunkeswarpur measuring an area Ac.0.020 decimals as illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶5

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a poor and landless lady has been residing over the land in question having her house thereon since long. He further submits that the Encroachment case against the Petitioner having been illegally initiated, final order has been passed and the imposed find having been collected from the Petitioner under threat and coercion, now she is being threatened by the Opposite Parties for her eviction.

¶6

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the proceeding having initiated against the Petitioner since the year, 2019, the same has been finalized and the Petitioner has paid the imposed fine on 14.05.2020. He submits that the Petitioner having surrendered to the Order of eviction by paying the imposed fine accepted her possession in respect of the land in question as unauthorized.

¶7

Keeping in view the submission made the averments taken in the petition as also the documents annexed thereto being perused, it is seen that the land in question i.e. under plot no 1401 has been recorded in the settlement operation as Gramya Rasta. A

¶8

= 2 =

¶9

case for eviction of the Petitioner having initiated in the year, 2019; fine has been paid in the mid of 2020. The kissam of the land being objectionable is not settable.

¶10

For all the aforesaid, while being not inclined to entertain this application with the prayer as has been advanced, this writ application stands disposed of with an observation that in the event, the Petitioner within ten days hence, makes an application before the Opposite Party No.3-Tahasildar Khallikote, expressing her grievances and indicting the eligibility for being settled with a piece of land to put in her head, the would be considered in its proper perspective and disposed of early in accordance with law.

¶11

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020.

¶12

…………………..

¶13

Narayan

Maya Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Jena 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Ch. Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Uttam Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Pranabandhu Rout Vs State of Odisha

Umesh Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satyanarayan Mahakud Vs State of Odisha

Luka Sabar Vs State of Odisha