Disposed

Ramakanta Bhal v. Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

Orissa HC17 Jul 2023CONTC/1344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-removal of encroachments from Government land, the court held that there was substantial compliance after verifying photographs and affidavits. While granting the petition's disposal, it allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the contemnor if any obstruction remains after due enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is disposed of, with the petitioner granted liberty to approach the opposite party if any obstruction remains after due enquiry.

Ramakanta Bhal Vs Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CONTC No. 1344 of 2023

¶3

Ramakanta Bhal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandabali, …. Opposite Party/ Bhadrak Contemnors

¶8

Mr. YSP Babu, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 17.07.2023

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State opposite party-contemnor.

¶15

Instant contempt petition is filed by the petitioner for noncompliance of the Court’s order in W.P. (C) No.28331 of 2021 and directions issued in CONTC Nos. 2633 & 5688 of 2022.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an order and repeated directions in CONTC Nos. 2633 & 5688 of 2022, the encroachment has not been fully removed. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been non-compliance of the Court’s direction to the fullest extent. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the additional affidavits filed subsequent to the compliance affidavit of the opposite party-contemnor. It has been alleged that two of the encroachers have been evicted, whereas, in respect of opposite party Nos. 6 & 7 to W.P.(C) No. 28331 of 2021, they are still having the residential houses over the Government land.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

In reply Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the opposite party contemnor referring to the compliance affidavit submits that there is no encroachment left and the Government land is free from it as the eviction was carried out on different dates in presence of police personnel and villagers. It is submitted that the demarcation was held and finally the eviction on 17^th May & 18^th May, 2022. So, therefore, the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No. 28331 of 2021 has been fully complied with and hence, the claim of the petitioner is stoutly denied.

¶19

Pursuant to the Court’s direction dated 6^th July, 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner produced certain photographs for perusal of it in order to satisfy and show that opposite party Nos. 6 & 7 are still in possession of the Government land. It is claimed that because of the encroachment, the road is not wide enough to pass a four wheeler and hence, the remaining portion which is in unauthorized possession is required to be removed and as such, opposite party-contemnor has not complied the order in full.

¶20

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the photographs produced in Court today and taking into account the submission of Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the opposite party-contemnor and compliance affidavit as at Flag-‘A’, the Court is of the view that there has been substantial compliance and if in case any Government land is still under possession of opposite party Nos. 6 & 7, necessary steps and measures to be taken for its removal.

¶21

With the above direction, the contempt petition stands disposed of with the proceeding dropped. However, the petitioner is granted the liberty to approach the opposite party-contemnor and

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

if he claims that the land is not fully cleared of obstruction and so revealed after due enquiry, steps to be taken for its removal as per law.

¶24

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶25

KABITA/ROJINA

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:29:11

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Ramakanta Bhal v. Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakanta Bhal v. Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

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

Jitendra Ku.Pradhan @ J.Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Ch.Das Vs Commnr.-C-Secy.

Kamala Pradhan @ Kamala Bairiganjan Vs State of Odisha

Radha Govinda Jew Vs Brahmananda Prusty

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Sethy Vs Amulya Kumar Sahoo, Tahsildar, Tirtol