Partly allowed

Biswanath Sahu v. Collector,Ganjam

Orissa HC18 Jul 2023WP(C)/2111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a stay on demolition of his house on government land, claiming eligibility for allotment due to his father being a defence personnel. The court granted liberty to submit a representation for regularization and ordered maintenance of status quo pending final decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a representation regarding regularization of allotment within three weeks; maintenance of status quo on the schedule land pending disposal.

Biswanath Sahu Vs Collector,Ganjam — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2111 of 2013

¶3

Biswanath Sahu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Goutam Mishra, Senior Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Collector, Ganjam & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA

¶10

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 18.07.2023

Order No.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. A.K.Dash, Advocate and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 1 & 4.

¶15

None appears for opposite party Nos. 2 &3.

¶16

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.2 not to demolish his house situate over the schedule land till a final decision is rendered on the process of allotment pursuant to Annexure-1 series.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner’s father was allotted a patch of land in the village in question which was meant for allotment to Army Personnel and while claiming so, he refers to Annexure-1 series. It is further submitted that later to the death of the petitioner’s father, the

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

petitioner continued with the possession and paid rent towards the land in occupation and also referred to the rent receipts as at Anenxure-2 series. According to Mr. Mishra, in the meantime, all on a sudden, the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party No.2 initiated action for eviction as a result of which there was large scale protest seeking rehabilitation and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, his possession over the schedule land is by virtue of Anenxure-1 series. Since the possession has been nearly for 56 years as on date and it is contemplated by opposite party No.2 about the petitioners’ eviction along with others, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate lastly submits that the petitioner’s father was in defence service and he was in fact in possession of the land in question being eligible for concession which was so declared and as evident from Anenxure-1 series, so therefore, any such action for his eviction of from the schedule land would be arbitrary, unjust and illegal and therefore, it has to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

¶20

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties referring to the counter affidavit submits that admittedly, no encroachment proceeding has been initiated but in so far as any such action contemplated, all such formalities as per the provisions of the OPLE Act are to be observed. It is claimed that since there has been no allotment in favour of the petitioner’s father though he was declared eligible as made to appear from Annexure-1 series, the action against eviction cannot be prevented as the schedule land still stands in the name of Government. In reply, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate refers to the rejoinder and submits that considering the long possession and the fact that the petitioner’s father was eligible for concession in the allotment of the Government land being defence personnel, the action is out rightly unjustified.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

In course of hearing, it is suggested by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that since the petitioner’s father was a defence personnel and necessary correspondences under Annexure-1 series reveal that he was eligible for concession as per Home Department Resolution dated 14^th May, 1964, in case, any such application is received from the petitioner for settlement, the same should be examined by opposite party No.1. In fact, such a suggestion is received in order to reconcile the possession and ensure allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner being the successor and presently in possession of the land in question.

¶23

Having regard to the above facts and considering the fact that the petitioner’s father was held eligible as it is revealed from Annexure-1 series and the fact that the possession has been continued till date in support of which rent receipts and holding tax receipts have been placed reliance on by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate as at Annexure-2 series and Annexure-5 series respectively to the rejoinder affidavit, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be granted liberty to submit a representation addressed to the Collector, Ganjam-opposite party No.1 for final decision.

¶24

Hence, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, writ petition stand disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to submit a representation to opposite party No.1 within three weeks from today and in the event, any such request is received from him with regard to regularization of the allotment of the schedule land, the same shall be considered and disposed of as per and in accordance with law

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

preferably within a period of next six weeks after having providing an opportunity of hearing to him and till such time, there shall be status quo maintained in respect of the schedule land. It is further directed that the opposite party No.1 shall consider the possession of the petitioner’s family on and from 1967 till date and the fact that his father was eligible for allotment of the same in view of the Government’s Home Department Resolution dated 14^th May, 1964 as revealed from Anenxure-1 series before taking a final call in the matter.

¶28

KABITA

¶29

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

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:32:21

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Biswanath Sahu v. Collector,Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswanath Sahu v. Collector,Ganjam

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

Radha Govinda Jew Vs Brahmananda Prusty

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Bhal Vs Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

Dhruba Charan Panda Vs Mahadeb Dixit

Prafulla K.Pattnaik Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Md.Majrul Vs State of Odisha