Disposed

Sibu Murmu v. State

Orissa HC11 Jul 2023WP(C)/8307/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice regarding estate settlement under the OPLE Act. The court refused an adjournment but disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for land settlement after he submits a show-cause reply within three weeks, maintaining status quo. None in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty allowed to file show cause reply within three weeks; respondent to consider land settlement plea within four weeks; status quo maintained.

Sibu Murmu Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.8307 of 2011

¶3

Sibu Murmu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D. Kumar, Advocate

¶6

Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

11.07.2023

Order No.

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned action and notice dated 25^th February, 2011 issued in connection with E.C. Case No.19 of 2010 on the grounds stated therein.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment since the conducting counsel is sick and not available today.

¶15

However, the Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing any further considering the fact that matter is pending since 2011 with an interim order dated 15^th April, 2011.

¶16

4. Heard Mr. Rout learned AGA for the State opposite parties.

¶17

In so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he is a landless and homesteadless person and without settling the schedule land in his favour, impugned notice under Annexure-1 has been issued which is also without considering the representation under Annexure-2. In other words, the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned action at the instance of opposite party No.2 is to the effect that the schedule land should be settled with him being a

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

person eligible and entitled for it as per the provisions of the OPLE Act which has been denied and intervened by Anenxure-1.

¶20

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite parties referring to the counter affidavit submits that the land cannot be settled with the petitioner since it is of kisam ‘Patita’ and earmarked for construction of office of the local GP.

¶21

Without expressing anything on merits of the claim of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that since the notice under Anenxue-1 in Form ‘Ka’ has been issued, the petitioner should respond to it and submit a show cause and also claim for settlement of the schedule land if permissible under law for a decision by opposite party No.2 which would rather serve the purpose and advance the cause of justice.

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to file show cause/reply in response to Annexure-1 which shall be filed within three weeks from today and in the event, any such response is received from him within the time stipulated, opposite party No.2 shall consider and examine it and pass a final order in presence of the parties also by considering the plea for settlement vis-à-vis the schedule land as per the provisions of the OPLE Act and to compete entire exercise preferably within next four weeks and till such time, there shall be status quo maintained vis-à-vis the schedule land.

¶24

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

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

Tudu Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 12-Jul-2023 12:56:22

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Sibu Murmu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibu Murmu v. State

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

Banamali Jena Vs State

Jagannatha Mohanty Vs R.D.C.and Ors.

Gourahari Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bhima Jena Vs Uchhaba Jena

S.Sukuria Pradhan Vs State

Premalata Nayak Vs State of Odisha