Dismissed

Baidhar Malik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Jul 2023WP(C)/6817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging eviction notices issued under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, holding that the petitioner must approach the civil court under Section 25(3) to establish rights over the land, granting a six-week stay on eviction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; liberty granted to file a suit in civil court within six weeks; temporary stay granted on the eviction notice during this period.

Baidhar Malik Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6817 of 2023

¶3

Baidhar Malik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Giri, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. YSP Babu, AGA Mr. S.N. Maharana, Advocate for O.P.No.5 CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 12.07.2023

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

Heard Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Babu, learned AGA for State opposite party Nos.1 to 4 besides Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for opposite party No.5.

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the eviction notice dated 31st January, 2023 under Annexre-1 issued by opposite party No.3 in connection with the proceeding in E.C. No.338 of 2022-2023 followed by notice dated 8th February, 2023 vide Annexure-3 by opposite party No.2 pursuant to the instruction received from opposite party No.1 on the requisition by Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar opposite party No.4 later to the disposal of OA No.19 of 2009 on the grounds stated therein.

¶15

Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment in OA No.19 of 2009 dated 15th December, 2017 as at Annexure-4 is not binding to the petitioner and that apart, the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

issuance of eviction notices under Annexures-1 and 3 is not in compliance with the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to ‘the OHRE Act’) and hence, the impugned action is liable to be interfered with and quashed in the interest of justice. While contending so, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question at present in respect of which the encroachment proceeding has been initiated.

¶18

Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 4 submits that such an action was initiated later to the requisition received from Endowment Authority and in so far as the encroachment proceeding in EC No.338 of 2022-2023 is concerned, the same was initiated inadvertently and therefore, the proceeding was dropped by order dated 31st March, 2023 of opposite party No.3 and while contending so, copy of the said order is produced in Court today.

¶19

Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the eviction notice under Annexure-3 is in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the OHRE Act. To supplement the above argument, Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State submits that the petitioner shall have the remedy to approach the civil court in view of Section 25(3) of the OHRE Act. In other words, it submitted that challenging the impugned notice under Annexure-3 which is as against unauthorized occupation of the land by the petitioner, the remedy lies before the civil court to establish his rights permissible in view of Section 25(3) of the OHRE Act. In response to the above,

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not to approach the civil court since because he is aggrieved of the impugned action under Annexure-3 in view of the judgment in OA No.19 of 2009 in which was not even a party. That apart, referring to Rule 14 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 (in short ‘the Rules’), it is submitted by Mr. Giri that the procedure which has been prescribed therein was to be followed upon receipt of requisition under Section 25 of the OHRE Act which has not been observed and duly complied with in the case at hand.

¶22

In any view of the matter, since any person aggrieved of the decision of the Endowment Authority and subsequent action for eviction, in view of Section 25(3) of the OHRE Act has the remedy to institute a suit in a civil court to establish his rights, so therefore, in the considered view of the Court, even though the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in OA No.19 of 2009, but aggrieved of the decision and action followed vide Annexure-3, having regard to the expression ‘any person aggrieved of the action by the Collector shall have the remedy before the civil court’ as found in Section 25(3) of the OHRE Act, it has to be held that the writ petition is not to be entertained rather leaving the petitioner to avail the remedy approaching the civil court for a decision according to law.

¶23

Hence, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the civil court of competent authority challenging the action under Annexure-3 by Page 3 of 4

¶25

filing a suit in view of Section 25(3) of the OHRE Act which shall be instituted within a period of six weeks from today and till such time, eviction notice as at Annexure-3 shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that once the period as stipulated above expired and the remedy is not availed of knocking the doors of the civil court, opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶26

A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 13-Jul-2023 12:21:46

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Baidhar Malik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidhar Malik 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

Bhima Jena Vs Uchhaba Jena

Sibu Murmu Vs State

S.Sukuria Pradhan Vs State

Hrudananda Vs Abadhuta

Dutia Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bhagban Malik Vs State of Odisha