The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Tahasildar to consider a land settlement application under the OPLE Act. The petition was rejected because the application lacked reference to the specific eviction proceeding and failed to establish necessary procedural links.
The writ application was dismissed.
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.6351 of 2021
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).
The Petitioner by filing this writ application has prayed for issuance of a suitable writ in shape of mandamus directing the O.P. No.3 (Tahasildar, Bonai) for disposal of the petition under section 8(A) of the OPLE Act as at Annexure-3 within a period of three months.
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 No. 166 of 2020 having been initiated against this Petitioner, final order holding the Petitioner’s possession to be unauthorized and directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as penalty for the said unauthorized occupation has already been passed on 09.09.2020.
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 not being considered. 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.
In the case at hand, the order of eviction in the Encroachment Proceeding has been passed on 09.09.2020. It is also not stated that this application under section 8-A of the OPLE Act has been filed in that proceeding. In fact this application as at Annexure-3 has no reference to that Encroachment Proceeding. No such record is also shown as to its receipt by the Authority concerned.
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.
………………… D. Dash, J.
Aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should entertain an application seeking settlement of land under the OPLE Act where the application was not filed in the specific eviction proceeding.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief for non-consideration of an application under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
O.P. No.3 (Tahasildar, Bonai)
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
