Partly allowed

Chhetambar Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/5214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for directions to authorities to consider petitioner's settlement application under Rules 2007 before eviction. Court directed acceptance of fresh application, examination within eight weeks, and maintenance of status quo pending such exercise under OPLE Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.3 to receive, accept, and consider a fresh settlement application within eight weeks. Directive to maintain status quo during this period. Liberty to petitioner to file

Chhetambar Bhoi Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2023

¶3

Chhetambar Bhoi

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

10.04.2023

Order No.

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

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application under Section 11(1)(A) of the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2007’) within a stipulated time.

¶16

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the schedule land by the petitioner is revealed from Annexure-1, a copy of the yadast report, subsequent which, the settlement map was corrected, a copy which as at Annexure-2. It is further submitted that despite the right over the schedule land claimed by the petitioner and request was made for settlement in terms of the provisions of the Rules, 2007, the same was not considered by opposite party No.3, who instead issued notice in Form ‘Ka’ as per Annexure-3 and thereafter, in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-4 which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Lastly, it is submitted that before any action for eviction from the schedule land

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

is carried out, the application for settlement in terms of Rules, 2007 vide Annexure-5 should be examined by the authority concerned, namely, opposite party No.3.

¶19

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties on the other hand submits that the land stands in the name of the Govt. and in the meantime, notice in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-4 has been issued to the petitioner.

¶20

It is stated that the application under Annexure-5 is of the year 2018. In course of hearing, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.3 did not examine the plea of the petitioner and consider settlement of the schedule land in terms of Rules, 2007 and instead issued notice in Form ‘Ka’ under Annexure-3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and objection of Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State, the Court is of the view that the request for settlement in favour of the petitioner, who claimed to be Schedule Tribe in terms of Rules, 2007 should be examined by opposite party No.3 before any action for eviction is taken against him. The Court is apprised that no such plea was ever examined by opposite party No.3 at any time before issuance of notice in Form ‘Kha’ under Annexure-4. So therefore, under the above circumstances, the Court reiterates its view that such a plea of the petitioner should be examined and considered within a stipulated time before taking any action as per the provisions of the OPLE Act. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be granted the liberty to file a fresh application for consideration of opposite party No.3, which the Court is inclined to permit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to receive and accept fresh application from the petitioner for consideration of settlement vis-àvis the schedule land in terms of Rules, 2007 and thereafter to pass necessary order as per and in accordance with law and in the event, the same is rejected, then to proceed according to the provisions of the OPLE Act. It is further directed that entire exercise shall be accomplished preferably with a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and until then, to maintain status quo over the schedule land.

¶24

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

¶25

Tudu

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Chhetambar Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhetambar Bhoi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debesh Ch.Nayak Vs State

Dhruba Behera Vs Collector,Puri

Somanath Gamango Vs State of Odisha

Sukanya Das Vs Mausam Ku.Singh

Maa Tarini Rice Mill Vs Cao,Jagannath Templ

Prakash Raghunath Choudhury Vs State of Odisha