Dismissed

Kuna Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/7580/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition regarding disputed government land occupation was disposed of. Since the petitioner did not establish a right by approaching the competent civil court within thirty years, the Court declined to issue a representation order but granted liberty to pursue remedies elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum.

Kuna Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.7580 OF 2020

¶2

02 01.02.2021

¶3

The matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶4

Heard Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶5

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties no.3 and 4 to settle an area of Hec. 0.010 R of Government land of Plot No.1321 under Khata No.329 of Mouza-Pakari, Tahasil-Kotagarh in the district of Kandhamal in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of O.P.L.E. Act or O.G.L.S. Act and he further seeks for quashment of the notice dated 18.02.2020 issued by opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Kotagarh pursuant to encroachment Case No.433 of 2019 vide Annexure-1.

¶6

Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s forefathers were in occupation of the schedule land for more than 43 years. Accordingly, opposite no.4 has initiated Encroachment Case No.433 of 2019 against the petitioner vide Annexure-3 for unauthorized occupation of Government land. Though the petitioner approached opposite party no.4 for settlement of the aforesaid land in his favour vide Annexure-5, opposite party no.4 has issued notice to the petitioner in the aforesaid encroachment case to vacate the Government land.

¶7

Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is no dispute that the petitioner is in occupation of the Government land from

¶8

his forefather. Thereby, opposite party no.4 has initiated Encroachment Case No.433 of 2019 against the petitioner. Consequentially, the petitioner cannot obstruct opposite party no.4 to proceed with the encroachment case. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶9

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, admittedly, the petitioner is in occupation of the Government land and he has made application to opposite party no.4 for settlement of the said land in his favour vide Annexure-5 under the provisions of Odisha Government Land Settlement Act. When such application is pending for consideration, opposite party no.4 has issued notice under Annexure-1 to the petitioner in Encroachment Case No.433 of 2019 to vacate the Government land. If the petitioner is in occupation of Government land for more than 30 years, then he has to establish his right by approaching competent civil court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction in the nature of representation. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum ventilating his grievances.

¶10

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶12

Alok

Kuna Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuna Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramilabala Gantayat Vs State

Seshadev Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Baladev Sa Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Kumar Pradhan Vs Pradeep Kumar Dash

Sachin Ojha Vs State of Odisha

Indira Satapathy Vs Executive Engineer(Electrical) Bbsr