Disposed

Kedar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Dec 2023WP(C)/18825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition challenging an encroachment notice. The Court directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity to reply to the notice before any action is taken under Annexure-3.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted liberty to file a reply to the notice under Annexure-2 series; the action pursuant to Annexure-3 stands deferred pending receipt of the response.

Kedar Behera 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.18825 of 2017

¶3

Kedar Behera …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 12.12.2023

Order No.

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State.

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 issued by opposite party No.3 and for a direction to the other opposite parties to settle the schedule land in his favour on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice under Annexure 2 series has been issued, in response to which, liberty should be granted to reply before any such action is taken pursuant to Annexure-3.

¶17

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State submits that the said notice has been issued by the local Tahasildar in connection with Land Encroachment Case No. 499 of 2016.

¶18

In course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State that the land was required for construction of a Bus Stop, hence, Annexure-3 was issued by

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

opposite party No.3, which is responded with the reply that the said construction is already over at a different place.

¶21

Without expressing anything on merits of the case and since the petitioner has been issued and served with a notice vide encroachment proceeding, the Court is of the considered view that before any such action is taken pursuant to Annexure-3, which is at the behest of opposite party No.3, he should be provided an opportunity to reply for a decision by the local Tahasildar in accordance with law.

¶22

Hence, It is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to file a reply to the notice under Annexure-2 series in connection with Land Encroachment Case No. 499 of 2016 and in the event, any such response is received from him within a fortnight from today, the same shall be examined by the learned Tahasildar, Rayagada in the district of Gajapati, who shall thereafter to proceed and to dispose it of at the earliest preferably within next two weeks and till such

¶24

time, the action pursuant to Annexure-3 shall stand deferred.

¶25

Judge

¶26

Balaram

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 13-Dec-2023 19:25:28

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Kedar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Behera 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

Sanjukta Dash Vs State of Odisha

Deheripali Daily Market Hawkers Union Vs Sambalpur Municipal Corporation

Sukadev Sayan Vs Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Surjit Singh Makhija Vs State and Ors.

L.Simanchal Achary Vs State of Odisha

Udhab Kumar Sahoo Alias Udhaba Sahoo Vs State of Odisha