Dismissed

Manjulata Dehuri v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Mar 2021WP(C)/6631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's writ petition seeking to quash an eviction notice from the Gram Panchayat. Observing the lack of allotment letters and pending rent, the Court found no justification to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction as the petitioner still had a pending written representation before the administrative authority.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ application was disposed of without quashing the eviction notice.

Manjulata Dehuri Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.6631 of 2021

¶2

18.03.2021 This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

¶3

The Petitioner by filing this writ application has prayed for quashing the eviction notice dated 26.01.2021 issued by Sarpanch, Barambagarh Gram Panchayat, Baramba, Cuttack as at Annexure-4.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Govt. Advocate.

¶5

Keeping in view the submissions made, the averments taken in the petition as also the documents annexed thereto are perused. It is seen that straight way on receipt of the notice dated 26.01.2021from the Sarpanch, Baramba Gram Panchayat, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying for its quashment.

¶6

About 3 years and 8 months back, the Petitioner had also received similar notice. Although the Petitioner claims to be in occupation of this shop room of the Gram Panchayat, no such letter of allotment has been filed. The only document in support of the claim of the Petitioner is the receipt showing lump sum deposit said to have been made in March, 2017 which according to the case of the Gram Panchayat was the initial deposit for taking part in the auction. The Petitioner having been in occupation of the shop room for all these period has also not paid the rent towards said occupation. The notice under challenge as at Annexure-4 reveals that

¶7

this Petitioner for said non-payment of the rent has been asked to deposit the same and also to give key of the shop room after removing all the articles kept therein. It has been further stated that on failure, action as per law would be taken. The Petitioner however states that the representation filed pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ application of the year 2017 seeking quashment of similar notice of the year 2017 is still pending. It may be noted here that in that earlier writ application, this Court having not interfered with a similar notice as at Annexuxre-2 had disposed of the writ application with a direction for consideration and disposal of the representation ventilating the grievance of the Petitioner by the B.D.O., Baramba Block (Opposite Party No.4)

¶8

In the above state of affair, at this stage, this Court does not find any reason/justification to entertain the application with the prayer as advanced therein so as to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶9

It is however observed that it would be open for the Petitioner to pursue his representation which is stated to be pending with the B.D.O., Baramba Block for its consideration and disposal.

¶10

The writ application is accordingly disposed of.

¶11

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶12

………………… D. Dash, J.

¶13

Aks

Manjulata Dehuri v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjulata Dehuri 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

Niranjan Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Amina Bibi@ Amena Bibi Vs State of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Behera Vs the Tahasildar, Bonth

Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs State of Odisha

D.Bala Subramaniayan @ D.Balasubromaniyan Vs State of Odisha

Kartika Bagh @ Phampudu Vs State of Odisha