Disposed

Laxmidhar Samantaray v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC6 Jul 2023WP(C)/27407/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants liberty for a landless petitioner to challenge an eviction order regarding a government plot through the appellate forum, condoning delay, while maintaining status quo pending the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach Appellate Authority within a fortnight with delayed condoned; status quo maintained on land pending appeal disposal.

Laxmidhar Samantaray Vs State and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.27407 of 2013

¶3

Laxmidhar Samantaray …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opposite Parties

Ms. S. Mishra, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Stateopposite parties.

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the action of opposite parties against demolition of his dwelling house standing over Plot Nos. 649 (P) and 650(P) under Khata No. 573 of Mouza-Paradeep Garh in the district of Jagatsinghpur on the grounds inter alia that such action is without following due procedure of law.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to copy of the Landless Certificate as at Annexure-1 and rent receipts towards realization of penalty submits that the possession of the petitioner has been for long and in that connection, however, a proceeding in E.C. No. 104 of 2000 was initiated against him for eviction and therein, the impugned order under Annexure-3 series was passed by opposite party No.3. It is contended that without considering settlement of the schedule land with the petitioner as he is a landless person, the action for eviction was taken against him and it finally

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 24^th January, 2002. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal, which has not considered the possession of the petitioner that stands proved by the Amin’s Report as at Annexure-4.

¶18

Ms. Mishra, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties on the other hand submits that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and in his immediate presence, the impugned order dated 24^th January, 2002 was passed and therefore, there has been no illegality committed by opposite party No.3.

¶19

The said order is of the year, 2002, whereby, action was taken alleging the possession of the petitioner as unauthorized in respect of the Government plot. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 24^th January, 2002 was not challenged in appeal, however, liberty is sought for, at present to approach the appellate authority.

¶20

This Court passed an interim order in the year 2013, which is still in force.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties and the fact that the petitioner claimed to be a landless person referring to Annexure-1, a certificate issued by opposite party No.3 and regard being had to the possession of the schedule land by him which is prima facie proved from the rent receipts and other documents besides the fact that the encroachment proceeding was initiated in 2000, the Court is of the humble view that liberty should be granted for him to approach the appellate forum challenging the impugned action in the interest of justice.

¶22

8. 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 Authority and in the event, any such appeal is filed within

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

a fortnight from today, the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur shall entertain it condoning the delay, if any and thereafter to proceed to dispose it of as per and in accordance with law providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides and till such time, the appeal is presented, there shall be status quo maintained vis-à-vis the schedule land.

¶26

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik)

¶28

Balaram Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 07-Jul-2023 12:15:30

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Laxmidhar Samantaray v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmidhar Samantaray v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lingaraj Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Tuna @ Binay Swain Vs State of Odisha

Pradipta Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Keshab Ch.Samantray Vs State and Ors.

Golap Ch.Sahoo Vs State

Dhurguj Mandal Vs State of Odisha