Disposed

Prafulla K.Pattnaik v. Collector,Dhenkanal

Orissa HC18 Jul 2023WP(C)/16120/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction proceedings and land settlement matters. The court directed the petitioner to appeal to the Sub-Collector and maintained status quo pending the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to appeal to the Sub-Collector within a fortnight; status quo maintained on schedule land pending appeal.

Prafulla K.Pattnaik Vs Collector,Dhenkanal — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16120 of 2012

¶3

Prafulla Kumar Pattnaik ….

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. K.K.Mishra, Advocate & Mr. S. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Collector , Dhenkanal & Another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 18.07.2023 Order No. 11. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the opposite parties.

¶10

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice under Annexure-1 against eviction and for a direction to settle the schedule land in his favour in terms of Section 7(2) of the OPLE Act on the grounds stated therein.

¶11

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that encroachment proceeding was initiated in the year 2007 and in that connection, impugned notice under Anenxure-1 was issued without any date fixed for appearance and response/reply to be received from the petitioner and thereafter, it was followed by Encroachment Case No. 380/1992-93. It is contended that without considering the settlement of the schedule land by the Nazal Committee since the possession has been for long, the impugned notice under Annexue-1 was issued so also the subsequent proceeding initiated vide E.C. No. 380/ 1992-93. It is

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

claimed that the land in question is not a Government plot and therefore, the impugned action under Annexure-1 as well as Annexures-3 & 4 to be bad in law. In response to the above, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the opposite parties referring to the record at his disposal claims that the land is owned by Government and for the alleged illegal possession of the petitioner, notice under Annexure-1 was issued which was followed by a notice of eviction. Such action was also initiated vide Encroachment Case No.380/1992-93 followed by eviction notices as informed to the Court by Mr. Rout, learned AGA.

¶14

In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no service of 2^nd notice and therefore, the action against the petitioner and his eviction from the schedule land is not maintainable. The record is produced before the Court by Mr. Rout, learned AGA and it is claimed that there has been endorsement with regard to service of notice on the petitioner. In reply Mr. Mishra submits that there has been no proper affixture of notice with regard to eviction in connection with E.C. No. 687 of 2007 as well as E.C. No. 380 of 1992-93. However, the record prima facie reveals that there has been service of notice on the petitioner long back with an endorsement thereof. Without entering into any such aspect of the service of notice by proper affixture or otherwise, since in the meantime nearly 17 years have gone by, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should approach the appellate forum by filing an appeal, as in the meantime, eviction notices stand issued against him. In other words, the Court is of the view that all such grounds which have been raised by the petitioner with regard to service of notice and action by opposite party No.2 and also with regard to the nature of land as to if Government owned or otherwise should be left open for a decision by the Appellate Authority, namely, Sub-Collector, Kamakhyanagar for a decision according

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

to law which would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶17

5. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to approach the appellate forum and in the event any such appeal is filed within a fortnight from today, the same shall be entertained by SubCollector, Kamakhyanagar condoning delay, if any and thereafter, to proceed and to dispose it of as per and in accordance with law and till such time, the appeal is presented, there shall be status quo maintained vis-à-vis the schedule land.

¶19

KABITA

¶20

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:32:20

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Prafulla K.Pattnaik v. Collector,Dhenkanal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla K.Pattnaik v. Collector,Dhenkanal

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

Radha Govinda Jew Vs Brahmananda Prusty

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

Ramakanta Bhal Vs Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

Dhruba Charan Panda Vs Mahadeb Dixit

Md.Majrul Vs State of Odisha

Biswanath Sahu Vs Collector,Ganjam