Disposed

Rashmita Subudhi v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC4 Jul 2023WP(C)/18993/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes a writ petition challenging eviction and demolition action. Grants liberty to appeal and maintains status quo pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appeal before Opposite Party No.2 within four weeks with condonation of delay; status quo maintained on the schedule land until the appeal is disposed of.

What the court decided

Rashmita Subudhi Vs State and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18993 of 2011

¶3

Rashmita Subudhi

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. S. Devi, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

04.07.2023

Order No.

Heard Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for State opposite parties.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of opposite party No.3 against her eviction from over the schedule land and demolition of the standing structure thereon not in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the Govt. land since 2008 but without resorting to the provisions of the OPP (EUO) Act, the impugned action under Annexure-2 series has been taken against her and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

¶18

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite parties on the other hand submits that the petitioner did not respond to the notice of the authority concerned and absented herself as a result of which order dated 1^st June, 2011 was passed by opposite party No.3

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

followed by the notice in Form ‘Kha’ and therefore, no illegality is committed as a result.

¶21

Without expressing anything on merits of the case of the petitioner and considering the submissions of the learned counsel of the respective parties, the Court is of the view that since in the meantime, impugned notice in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-2 series has been issued, the petitioner should instead approach the appellate forum challenging it on any of the grounds available to her under law. In other words, the Court is inclined to grant the liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the impugned action under Annexure-2 series before the Appellate Authority, namely, opposite party No.2 for a decision according to law.

¶22

Hence, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to approach opposite party No.2 and to file an appeal within four weeks from today and in the event, any such appeal is presented, it shall be entertained condoning the delay, if any and thereafter, to be disposed of as per and in accordance with law providing due opportunity of hearing to her. It is further directed that till such time, the appeal is moved by the petitioner, there shall be status quo maintained in respect of the schedule land.

¶24

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

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

Tudu

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 05-Jul-2023 18:11:24

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Rashmita Subudhi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rashmita Subudhi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaila Ku.Jena Vs Union of India and Anr.

Surendra Nath Patra Vs State and Ors.

Sunderlal Raimagiya Vs Tahasildar,Basta

Dandapani Baliarsing Vs Collector,Kandhamal

Sitaram Dhiman Vs State

Satyanarayan Sahu Vs State and Ors.