Disposed

Jagannatha Bhatara v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Jul 2023WP(C)/8014/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Schedule Tribe member, filed a writ petition seeking settlement of schedule land and protection from eviction. The High Court directed the authority to decide the pending representation within six weeks, considering objections raised by the Gram Sabha.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.4 to decide pending representation within six weeks; no coercive action until decision is passed.

Jagannatha Bhatara 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.8014 of 2016

¶3

Jagannatha Bhatara

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha &Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. Y.S.P.Babu, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 21.07.2023

Order No.

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

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.4 to settle the schedule land in his name which appertains to Plot No. 660, Khata No. 86 measuring an area of Ac 2.10 decimal in Mouza- Bakadabeda as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Schedule Tribe and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (shortly as the Act, 2006’) and not to evict him from the same until such order is passed.

¶17

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Schedule Tribe and he is in possession of the schedule land for quite long and hence, eligible and entitled for its settlement as per the Act, 2006 and in that regard,

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

representation under Anenxure-5 has been submitted with no decision taken thereon as yet.

¶20

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the schedule land cannot be settled with the petitioner since a Gram Sabha was held and after having a meeting on 6^th April, 2016,it proposed construction of a school building of Upgraded High School, Bakadabeda over the same and while claiming so, he refers to a copy of the minutes of the said meeting as at Annexure-A/4.

¶21

According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, an interim order against eviction is in force since 2016. It is also claimed that the petitioner is still in possession of the schedule land as on date.

¶22

Having regard to the above submissions and as there is no revelation in the counter affidavit with regard to the course of action which was adopted pursuant to Annexure-A/4 and since representation under Anenxure-5 is stated to be pending decision, the Court is of the view that the same should be examined and disposed of by opposite party No.4 within a stipulated period of time considering his grievance as per law.

¶23

Hence, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.4 to consider and examine Annexure-5 dated 1^st February, 2016 received from the petitioner and to take a final decision thereon,by having regard to Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit, preferably within a period

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, there shall be no coercive action against him.

¶27

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

¶28

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

KABITA/ROJINA

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 24-Jul-2023 17:26:22

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Jagannatha Bhatara v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannatha Bhatara 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

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik Vs Tapan Mohapatra

Himansu Kumar Giri Vs Subrat@Muralidhar

Sanjib Kumar Swain Vs General Manager, East Coast Railways

Ghanashyam Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pradip Kumar Behera Vs Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Tahasildar, Buddha Nagar, Bbsr

Raghab Jena Vs Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Tahasildar, Bbsr.