Disposed

Jagannatha Mohanty v. R.D.C.and Ors.

Orissa HC10 Jul 2023WP(C)/20127/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a recovery notice issued regarding government land. Instead of quashing the notice immediately, the court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate forum to challenge it, granting liberty regarding coercive action during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the appellate forum with liberty from coercive action against the land pending the appeal.

Jagannatha Mohanty Vs R.D.C.and Ors. — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20127of 2013

¶3

Jagannatha Mohanty

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. H.B.Dash, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

R.D.C. & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA

¶8

CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

10.07.2023

Order No.

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

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.4 in the issuance of notice under Annexure-2 in Form ‘Kha’ without considering the representation as at Annexure-3 and on such other grounds stated therein.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule land belongs to the Government recorded as ‘Rakhita’ as evident from Annexure-1 but it has been in possession of the petitioner for quite long. It is further submitted that despite the possession for more than 30 years which is the statutory period, without considering the representation under Annexure-3 and direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11070 of 2011 disposed of on 27^th April, 2011, impugned notice under Annexure-2 was issued which is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties referring to the counter affidavit submits that the possession for above 30 years could not be established and that apart, kisam of the schedule land is ‘Jungle’ and therefore, it could not have been settled in favour of the petitioner, who is also not a homesteadless person. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.4 did not consider the plea of the petitioner in its proper perspective and instead issued the impugned notice in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-2.

¶18

The notice under Annexure-2 was issued in the year 2012 later to the order of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 11070 of 2011. It may therefore besupposed that the objection/show cause/representation so submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-3 was considered by opposite party No.4 and thereafter, Annexure-2 was issued. However, it strongly challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the representation/reply under Annexure-3 was not duly considered and instead, notice in Form ’Kha’ was issued which is an illegality committed by opposite party No.4. It is also submitted that the petitioner has developed the schedule land by being in possession for more than 30 years and so therefore, should be settled with him, the fact which was lost sight of by opposite party No.4 in particular before issuance of impugned notice under Anenxure-2.

¶19

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is already before the civil court in C.S. No. 440 of 2010. It is made to appear that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul while entertaining the suit directed the parties to maintain status quo by an order in Misc. Case No. 3379 of 2011

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

dated 4th March, 2011. In other words, in respect of the schedule land, the petitioner has already approached the civil court seeking relief and therein, an interim order of status quo was passed way back in 2011.Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and plea of the petitioner about being in possession of the schedule land for long even beyond the statutory period, the Court is of the view that since in the meantime, impugned notice under Anenxur-2 inForm ‘Kha’ has been issued, the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to challenge it by approaching the appellate forum. Considering the fact that grievance of the petitioner apparently considered pursuant to the order dated 27^th April, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 11070 of 2011, the Court is of the conclusion that the petitioner should knock the doors of theAppellate Authority against Annexure-2.

¶22

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

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 by him within a fortnight from today, opposite party No.3 shall entertain the same condoning delay, if any and after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides shall endeavour to dispose it of as soon as possible preferably within a period of next four weeks and till such time, the appeal is presented, there shall be no coercive action against him vis-à-vis the land in question.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 11-Jul-2023 19:02:04

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Jagannatha Mohanty v. R.D.C.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannatha Mohanty v. R.D.C.and Ors.

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

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs Collector,Jajpur

Balmiki Naik Vs State of Odisha

Harihar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Banamali Jena Vs State

Gourahari Behera Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha