Allowed

Dutia Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Jul 2023WP(C)/19005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an encroachment proceeding initiated in 2016 against the petitioner. The court held that since a dereservation process for settlement had been initiated in 1991 and the land category changed, the fresh encroachment notice was unjustified without a final settlement decision. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice under Annexure-3 in E.C. No. 51 of 2016 is quashed; the authority is directed to consider the settlement and pass a final order within six weeks.

Dutia Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.19005 of 2016

¶3

Dutia Pradhan

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.P.K.Rout, AGA

¶10

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER
12.07.2023

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

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashment of the encroachment proceeding in E.C. No. 51 of 2016 with a direction to the opposite parties to settle the schedule land in his favour on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case land situate over plot No.98, khata No. 91 measuring an area of Ac. 0.24 decimal of the concerned Mouza under Sambalpur is admittedly owned by the Government plot. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a landless person and said to have occupied an area of Ac.0.24 decimals of the plot in respect of which encroachment proceeding was initiated vide E.C. No. 176 of 1983, whereafter, opposite party No.4 in connection therewith

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

initiated process for de-reservation of the land since kisam was recorded as ‘Gochar’. In fact, Ms. Mohapatra submits that dereservation Case No.03 of 1991 was registered which was finally disposed of by order dated 2^nd November, 1991. So, therefore, it is submitted that without considering the settlement of the schedule land in favour of the petitioner which was commenced with dereservation process, any such action followed by impugned notice under Annexure-3 is not tenable in law and therefore, it is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶19

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties on the other hand submits that case record in E.C. Case No. 176 of 1983 is misplaced and therefore, he has not received any instruction yet.

¶20

However, regard being had to Annexure-1 and the fact that encroachment proceeding was initiated way back in 1983 which was followed by de-reservation proceeding of 1991 and the fact that such de-reservation was allowed with the kisam of schedule land from ‘Gochar’ converted to ‘Abad Jogya Anabadi’ with a purpose to settle it in favour of the petitioner as revealed from Annexure-1 and considering the submission of Ms. Mohapatra appearing for him that there has been no final decision taken on the settlement, the Court is of the considered view that the impugned action under Annexure-3 is unjustified. In other words, the Court is of the view that once a process has been initiated for settlement of the schedule land in favour of the petitioner which was followed by dereservation and in fact, kisam was changed, without any such final decision being rendered thereon, the impugned action under Annexure-3 is unwarranted. So therefore, the Court is of the conclusion that the proceeding initiated vide E.C. No. 51 of 2016 followed by Annexure-3 with a notice in Form ‘Ka’ must have to be

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

interfered with in the interest of justice with the anticipation that the settlement of the schedule land shall be considered by the authority concerned in connection with E.C. No.176 of 1983.

¶23

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned notice under Annexure-3 in E.C. No. 51 of 2016 is hereby quashed with a direction that settlement of the schedule land shall be considered by opposite party No. 3 in connection with E.C. No. 176 of 1983 in the light of the development as aforesaid with reference to de-reservation Case No. 3 of 1991 and to pass a final order preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

Kabita/Rojina

¶26

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

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 13:20:20

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Dutia Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dutia Pradhan 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

Bhima Jena Vs Uchhaba Jena

Sibu Murmu Vs State

S.Sukuria Pradhan Vs State

Hrudananda Vs Abadhuta

Bhagban Malik Vs State of Odisha

Baidhar Malik Vs State of Odisha