such reference, opposite party No.4 by order dated 10th August, 2011 rejected the same on the grounds, such as, total homesteadless persons of the urban area has not been surveyed; total quantum of leasable Government land free from encroachment not surveyed yet; and the master plan of the urban area has not been followed up or reflected while making the recommendation. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that the said order of opposite party No.4 was challenged before opposite party No.3 in Encroachment Revision Case No. 8 of 2013 which was disposed of vide Anenxure-7 confirming the rejection of the same which further led to filing of the Revision Case No. 1 of 2014 before the RDC. It is contended that without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has been in possession earlier and subsequently rehabilitated by the orders of opposite party No.3, on such technical grounds, opposite party No.3 as well as opposite party No.4 rejected the claim for settlement as per the provisions of the OPLE Act. It is also contended that claim of the petitioner in terms of Section 8-A of the OPLE Act was also rejected without considering the fact of long possession in relation to the earlier plot and continuation with the rehabilitated one. So, therefore, according to Mr. Mohapatra, impugned notice under Annexure-6 series without considering rehabilitation of the petitioner as against the land in possession at present is arbitrary, unjust and not tenable in law and thus, liable to be interfered with consequential directions as per law.
