Dismissed

Pradipta Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Jul 2023WP(C)/16366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition while directing the respondent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated 7th March 2023 regarding eviction and demolition of a structure on 'Gramya Jungle' land, ensuring opportunity of hearing, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.3 to consider the representation dated 7th March 2023 regarding eviction and demolition, provide opportunity of hearing, and pass a final order within four weeks.

Pradipta Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16366 of 2023

¶3

Pradipta Kumar Biswal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. U.C. Behera, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Ms. S. Mishra, ASC CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

05.07.2023

Order No.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mishra, learned ASC for State opposite party Nos.1 to 5.

¶15

No notice need be issued to opposite party No.5 since the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No.3 to take action and demolition of the building standing over the schedule land which is a ‘Gramya Jungle’ situate in the concerned Revenue village after considering the representation dated 7^th March, 2023 under Annexure-2 on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.5 is in unauthorized possession of land in question and has even put up construction over the same and therefore, demolition of the standing structure is necessary and in that connection, the petitioner has moved opposite party No.3 with a representation dated 7^th March, 2023, however, no action has been taken thereon.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 4 submits that necessary order may perhaps be passed considering the limited prayer of the petitioner.

¶20

As it is made to suggest, the petitioner has approached opposite party No.3 and submitted Annexure-2. It is claimed that the said representation has not been disposed of which is with regard to eviction and demolition in respect of the schedule land in illegal possession of opposite party No.5. Since such a request is pending before the authority concerned, the Court is of the view that a direction is necessary to consider the same and dispose it of according to law.

¶21

Hence, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider and examine representation dated 7^th March, 2023 under Annexure-2 which is said to have been received from the petitioner and to pass a final order thereon after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties involved including the alleged encroacher, namely, opposite party No.5 and to complete the entire exercise preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶25

Tudu

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 06-Jul-2023 14:42:29

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Pradipta Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradipta Kumar Biswal 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

Dandapani Baliarsing Vs Collector,Kandhamal

Sitaram Dhiman Vs State

Rashmita Subudhi Vs State and Ors.

Lingaraj Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Tuna @ Binay Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sisir Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha