Disposed

Satyanarayan Sahu v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC4 Jul 2023WP(C)/6412/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging eviction of petitioners from government land via mike announcement. Court disposed of petition, directed respondent to proceed with lawful eviction after furnishing due process and notice, maintaining status quo until then.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; direction to opposite party No.4 to proceed for eviction after service of notice and opportunity of hearing, with status quo maintained till then.

Satyanarayan Sahu Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6412 of 2012

¶3

Satyanarayan Sahu and Another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Ms. D. Mohapatra, 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

Order No.

Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for State opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

¶15

None appears for opposite party No4.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.4 towards their eviction from the schedule land situate over Plot No.43, Khata No.192 measuring an area of Ac.0.01 dec. in village Pankapalli under Berhampur Tahasil on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially a notice under Annexure-3 was issued in the name of the father of the petitioners in the year 1974 but no action was taken thereafter but in meantime, opposite party No.4 has declared their eviction through mike announcement which is without following due process of law notwithstanding the fact that such possession by them is more than 30 years.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 3 referring to the counter affidavit submits that the schedule land stands in the name of a private person as per Annexure-A/3 and as such, no encroachment proceeding lies against the petitioners. However, in reply Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the action is contemplated by opposite party No.4 through mike announcement and as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question for which long back notice had been issued vide Annexure-3, any such eviction should be followed by due process of law. It is also challenged by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the land is a Govt. plot and not recorded with any private individual which is claimed by the State referring to Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit.

¶20

In any case, from Annexure-3, the Court finds that the notice as against the father of the petitioners was issued in respect of the schedule land. In fact, the name of the petitioners’ father does appear in Annexure-3 which is in respect of Plot No.43. But in so far as the counter affidavit is concerned, the claim of the State is as against plot situate under Khata No.192. A copy of the RoR as at Annexure-A/3 is perused which shows that Plot Nos.132, 133 and 134 situate under Khata No.192, whereas, the original notice under Annexure-3 relates to Plot No.43. Considering the challenge to the action of opposite party No.4 which is alleged to be in respect of Plot No.43 and the contention that it is owned by the Govt. the Court instead of entered into any such adjudication with regard to the identification of the plots in view of the counter affidavit with reference to Annexure-A/3, the Court is of the considered view that it should be left open for a decision by opposite party No.4, who is to proceed against the petitioners following due process of law, inasmuch as, the eviction which is contemplated through a mike

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

announcement which would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶23

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.4 to proceed against the petitioners for eviction if so contemplated as per and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein above but before any such action, an opportunity of hearing is to be provided with service of a notice to them and till such time, there shall be status quo maintained vis-à-vis the land in question.

¶25

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

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 05-Jul-2023 18:11:24

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Satyanarayan Sahu v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaila Ku.Jena Vs Union of India and Anr.

Surendra Nath Patra Vs State and Ors.

Sunderlal Raimagiya Vs Tahasildar,Basta

Dandapani Baliarsing Vs Collector,Kandhamal

Sitaram Dhiman Vs State

Rashmita Subudhi Vs State and Ors.