Disposed

The Headmaster, Ugme, Nuasahi School, Balliguda v. Gundicha Dash

Orissa HC10 Feb 2023CMP/86/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orrissa disposed of a CMP filed by a school headmaster challenging an execution order that directed delivery of possession to an opposite party. Noting the petitioner had not sought relief from the executing court and the caveat was moot, the court merely observed that the petitioner might approach the executing court for a commission to demarcate land.

What did the court decide?

CMP disposed with observation advised to approach executing court for relief regarding construction of boundary wall.

The Headmaster, Ugme, Nuasahi School, Balliguda Vs… — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 86 OF 2023

¶2

The Headmaster, UGME, Nuasahi …. Petitioner School, Balliguda

¶3

Mr. Ayusman Mahanta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Gundicha Dash and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

10.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 4^th July, 2022 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balliguda in E.P. No.16 of 2011, whereby allowing an application filed by the Opposite Party No.1-D.Hr under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., it has been directed to put him (D.Hr) in possession of the property with a further direction that if the D.Hr is still resisted, action as per Order XXI Rule 98 C.P.C. may be taken against the J.Drs including the Petitioner.

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Petitioner that C.S. No.29 of 2008 filed by the Opposite Party No.1-D.Hr was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior division) Balliguda vide judgment dated 2^nd July, 2010 under Annexure-1 series directing as under:

¶15

“The suit is decreed on contest. The right, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the suit property is declared and his possession over the same is confirmed and the defendants are permanently injuncted from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and further the defendant No.1 is directed to demolish the boundary wall at

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

his own cost within two months from the date of this judgment failing which the plaintiff is at liberty either to demolish the said wall or to take the shelter of this court for that purpose. Pleaders’ feels at the contested scale.”

¶19

When the boundary wall raised by the Petitioner’s School was not demolished, the Opposite Party No.1-D.Hr filed E.P. No.16 of 2011 and the boundary wall was subsequently demolished. Subsequently on an allegation that the D.Hr is creating disturbance in raising the boundary wall in Petitioner’s school in its own land, it moved the Tahasildar, Balliguda for demarcation of the land. Alleging that in the guise of demarcation, the Opposite Party No.1-D.Hr has been dispossessed from his property by the Tahasildar, S.I. and A.S.I of Balliguda, an application under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. was filed for a direction to take necessary action against the Government Officials including concerned Tahasildar, S.I. and A.S.I. and to deliver vacant possession to the D.Hr-Opposite Party No.1. Considering such application, the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed.

¶20

Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Petitioner’s school submits that after delivery of possession, the Opposite Party No.1 created disturbance when the Petitioner’s school attempted to raise boundary wall on its land. No attempt, whatsoever, was made to encroach upon the land of the Opposite Party No.1 nor any attempt was made to dispossess, as alleged. Learned executing Court deprecating the action of the Tahasidlar, Balliguda in suo motu demarcating the land without taking permission of the Court, passed the impugned order under Annexure-5. Thus, the Tahasildar, Balliguda may not cooperate

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

with the Petitioner in constructing the boundary wall of the school.

¶24

Although the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the order impugned herein, but the consequence of the impugned order may prejudice the Petitioner’s school, as the Tahasildar, Balliguda on the apprehension of action under Order XXI Rule 98 C.P.C., may not cooperate with the Petitioner’s school. Hence, he submits that a direction may be made to learned executing Court to issue a Commission to demarcate the land, so that the Petitioner can construct the boundary wall of the school.

¶25

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-5, it appears that learned executing Court observing that the Opposite Party No.1-D.hr has been dispossessed, directed to put him in possession of his property and it has also been directed that if the Petitioner resists compliance of the impugned order under Annexure-5, action under Order XXI Rule 98 C.P.C. may be taken. But, it appears that the Petitioner has not yet approached learned executing Court for redressal of his grievances for construction of the boundary wall of the school. Hence, it is observed that, if the Petitioner so advised, may move learned executing Court for appropriate relief to protect his interest while executing the decree.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶28

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

¶30

Page 3 of 3

The Headmaster, Ugme, Nuasahi School, Balliguda v. Gundicha Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Headmaster, Ugme, Nuasahi School, Balliguda v. Gundicha Dash

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

Binod Parida Vs Bishnu Priya Parida

Subhasmita Khatua Vs Kausik Kumar Sahoo

Pradeep K.Panigrahy@ Vs Archana Panda

Jambeswar Naik Vs Reena Naik

Renubala Behera Vs Deputy Registrar, Judical, High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Arjun Charan Mohanta Vs Basanti Mohanta