Allowed

Akhaya Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Mar 2021WP(C)/7073/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner in the writ petition challenged the eviction order and fine imposed by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak, without hearing him. The Court set aside the eviction order and directed the Tahasildar to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order set aside; Tahasildar directed to give petitioner opportunity of hearing and pass order within four weeks.

Akhaya Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7073 of 2021

¶3

Akhaya Kumar Sahu … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha & others… Opp. Parties

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

2.3.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though the petitioner is in occupation of the Government land measuring 80’ x 60’ feet appertaining to Plot No.1721/1951, Khata No.1011 of Mouza-Kuansa in Bhadrak Town for more than four decades, but without giving an opportunity of hearing, an order of eviction has been passed against him opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Bhadrak in Encroachment Case No.1663 of 2020 and fine has also been realized from him.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that in Encroachment Case No.1663 of 2020, the petitioner was directed to file show cause on 13.1.2021. When he came to the office of the opposite party no.3, fine was realized from him. But without giving an opportunity of hearing, an order of eviction has been passed against him on the said date under Form-Kha to withdraw from the said land within thirty days from the date of notice.

¶8

¶9

The contention of the petitioner that without giving an opportunity of hearing, fine has been realized from him and an order of eviction has been passed against him appears to have a substance.

¶10

Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order of eviction passed directing the petitioner to withdraw from the aforesaid land within thirty days and directs the Tahasildar, Bhadrak to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an order in the aforesaid encroachment case within four weeks hence addressing the grievance of the petitioner in the manner known to law. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear in the aforesaid case within the stipulated period, there is no impediment on the part of the Tahasidar to decide the matter in the absence of the petitioner in the said proceeding.

¶11

With the aforesaid order, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶13

PKS

Akhaya Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhaya Kumar Sahu 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

Shabana Kauser@Nishi Vs State

Ajay Jena Vs State of Odisha

Umakant Meher Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Mahana Vs State of Odisha

Chittaranjan Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Ganesh Khora Vs State of Odisha