writ petition challenging evictment by Tahasildar. Court considered claims of possession and setlement under OPLE Act 1972 and Forest Conservation Act 1980. Petitioner granted liberty to file representation.
Petitioner granted liberty to file representation before the Opposite Party No.3Tahasildar within two weeks for redressal of grievances.
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. 8695 OF 2021
02. 12.04.2021
The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
This writ application has been filed with a prayer to declare the attempted action of the Opposite Party No.3Tahasildar, R-Udayagiri to evict the Petitioner from the land in question as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Petitioner is in possession of the land in question since the time of his father. He further submits that although an Encroachment Case bearing No.465 of 1989 had been initiated against the Petitioner, no further action had been taken therein. It is submitted that now the Opposite Party No.3 without initiating any proceeding is attempting to evict the Petitioner. He further submits that it is a fit case where the Authority should consider for settlement of the land of the Petitioner as provided in law.
Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that although the Petitioner has stated about the initiation about the Encroachment case against him in respect of the land in question in the year, 1989, nothing has been averred in the petition as to any further development in that proceeding or even as to what final order has been passed therein. It is his submission that at this stage it cannot also be said that the question of settlement of the land in question in accordance with the provisions of Section-8A of the OPLE Act, 1972 having been considered by the Authority has been finally
= 2 =
decided in the proceeding. He further submits that the kisam of the land being Jungle, the same is highly objectionable and does not qualify for settlement in favour of any person, not only being prohibited under the OPLE Act, 1972 but also the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Considering the submissions made and on going through the averments taken in the petition as also the documents annexed thereto; further taking into account the specific grievance of the Petitioner as has been raised, this writ application stands disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file representation before the Opposite Party No.3Tahasildar, R-Udayagiri within two weeks hence, raising his grievances for their redressal in accordance with law.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
Narayan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's evictment from the land is legal and arbitrary.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Tahasildar
Additional Government Advocate
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
