Dismissed

Pradeepta Kumar Nayak v. Collector, Puri

Orissa HC5 Feb 2021WP(C)/818/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought directions to the Tahasildar regarding land recorded in the Government's name but used by a deity. Counsel for petitioners requested withdrawal of the petition after reliance on an amendment. The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on 02.05.2021 while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of gr

What the court decided

AI extract

Pradeepta Kumar Nayak Vs Collector, Puri — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 818 of 2021

¶2

05.02.2021

¶3

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

¶5

The petitioners in this writ petition pray for a direction to the Tahasildar, Nimapara (opposite party No.3) to consider and take a decision on the petition filed on 15.12.2020 under Annexure-5.

¶6

Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although Khata Nos. 1869 and 1870 of mouza-Patapur under Nimapara Tahasil in the district of Puri stands recorded in the name of Government under Rakhita Khata, the same is being used by deity, i.e., Bijesthali of Maa Mangala Tahakurani of the village. In support of his case, he referred to the copy of the land register prepared under Section 9 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the report of the Revenue Inspector in that regard. It is his submission that taking undue advantage of recording of the land in question in the name of Government, some antisocial persons are creating disturbance and raising unauthorized construction over the said land for which the petitioner has filed an application before the Tahasildar, Nimapara under Annexure-5 to take appropriate action, but the Tahasildar, Nimapara has not yet taken any action on the same. Hence, finding no other alternative, the petitioners have approached this

¶7

¶8

Court for the aforesaid relief.

¶9

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that admittedly the land in question is recorded in the name of the Government and a revision under Section 37(1) of the Act is pending before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in R.C. No. 48 of 2020. It appears that the petitioners have encroached upon over the suit land. Hence, no protection can be given to the encroachers. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶10

At this stage, Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority/Court for redessal of their grievances.

¶11

Granting such liberty, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶12

An authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No. 4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶13

……..……………………

¶14

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

¶15

bct

Pradeepta Kumar Nayak v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pradeepta Kumar Nayak v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanumati Majhi Vs Divisional Forest Officer Nayagarh Division

Sukanti Jena Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Bagh Vs Secretary,Regulated Market Committee

Bijana Kumar Harichandan Vs State of Odisha

Prativa Manjari Nayak Vs Kulamani Sahu

Harekrushna Senapati Vs State of Odisha