Disposed

Anchalika Ramalila Samiti, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Apr 2023WP(C)/10887/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a municipal notice regarding schedule land. Court held that since the notice is appealable, petitioner should approach the appellate authority. Liberty granted to approach forum within four weeks with stay pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach appellate forum within four weeks with condonation of delay; status quo maintained pending appellate decision.

Anchalika Ramalila Samiti, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.10887 of 2023

¶3

Anchalika Ramalila Samiti …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Rout,

¶9

Additional Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶12

ORDER 11.04.2023

¶13

Order No.

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite parties.

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner-society challenging impugned notice under Annexure-4 in Form ‘Kha’ in respect of the schedule land with a consequential direction to the opposite parties to settle it in its favour on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-society is using the schedule land for religious and charitable purposes and same is in existence since in the year 1951 but recently, the authority concerned issued notice in Form ‘Ka’ and thereafter, in Form ‘Kha’ vide Annexure-4. It is further submitted that the representation is pending decision before the Tahasildar, Baranga-opposite party No.4 but no decision has yet been taken in

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

that regard. It is also claimed that since a copy of the impugned notice/order vide Annexure-4 could not be obtained to file an appeal challenging the impugned action, status quo should be directed over the schedule land as an interim measure or else the petitioner-society would suffer immensely, in the event, the structure standing over the same is demolished.

¶19

On the other hand, Mr. Rout, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submits that since impugned notice under Annexure-4 in Form ‘Kha’ has been issued in the meantime and the decision is appealable in nature, the petitioner should approach the Authority challenging the same as per the provisions of the OPLE Act.

¶20

Gone through the representation dated 23^rd December, 2022 i.e. Annexure-2. The Court finds that notice in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-4 has been issued and it pre-supposes that either show cause and no show cause to have been filed by the petitionersociety, as a result of which, opposite party No.4 issued annexure-4. However, having regard to the representation submitted to opposite party No.4, a copy of which is Annexure-2 for the Court’s perusal, it is of the view that the petitioner-society should be granted the liberty to approach the appropriate authority challenging the action of opposite party No.4 and the notice in Form ‘Kha’ i.e. Annexure-4 for a decision thereon within the stipulated period of time which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶21

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner-society to approach the appellate forum against the decision of opposite party No.4 for

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

having issued Annexure-4 and in the event, any such appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the concerned Authority shall entertain it condoning delay, if any and thereafter to examine and pass necessary order thereon after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides and then to dispose it of within next four weeks and till then, the parties are to maintain status quo over the schedule land.

¶25

A copy of this order be issued as per rules and uploaded in

¶26

Court’s website in course of the day.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Anchalika Ramalila Samiti, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchalika Ramalila Samiti, Cuttack 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukanya Das Vs Mausam Ku.Singh

Maa Tarini Rice Mill Vs Cao,Jagannath Templ

Prakash Raghunath Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Mangulu Pradhan Vs Chief Managing Dire

Narayan Besra@Vesra Vs State of Orissa

Nihar Ranjan Das Vs State of Orissa