Disposed

Maa Tarini Rice Mill v. Cao,Jagannath Templ

Orissa HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/848/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition for settlement of temple land. The Court directed the Temple Administration to consider the petitioner's plea for land settlement under the Uniform Policy, provide a hearing opportunity, and issue an order within six weeks, in light of a previous review meeting decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to consider the petitioner's plea for land settlement under the Uniform Policy, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass an order within six weeks.

Maa Tarini Rice Mill Vs Cao,Jagannath Templ — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.848 of 2013

¶3

Maa Tarini Rice Mill, At Budhapada …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Chief Administrative Officer, Sri …. Jagannath Temple Administration Puri RDC Central, Orissa, Cuttack & Others

¶6

Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. S.Satpathy, Advocate for O.P.Nos 1 & 2 Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA for O.P. Nos. 1, 3 & 4

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
10.04.2023

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for State-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 besides Mr.Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.

¶12

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties for settlement of the schedule land under the Uniform Policy of the Temple Administration on the grounds stated therein.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule land is under his possession in respect of which the Temple Administration without following due process of law is contemplating to evict him from over the same situate over plot Nos. 434 & 450 under khata No. 173 (presently Khata No. 149/3)

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

despite the fact that rent is being paid for the same and an application for registration to be pending since 2006.

¶16

Gone through the counter affidavit of opposite party No.1 and also the additional affidavit besides the rejoinder of the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for purchase of the schedule land was duly received by the Authority concerned on 8^th October, 2006 and for its consideration in terms of the Uniform Policy of the Temple Administration which is in respect of plot Nos. 434 & 450 under khata No.173 with kissam ‘Gharabari and Khalisthana’ respectively.

¶18

In response to above Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submit that since because the kissam of the schedule land is ‘Patita’ it cannot be settled with the petitioner in view of the Uniform Policy and while contending so, he refers to the relevant clause of the said policy. As against the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the kissam of the schedule land is not ‘Patita’ but ‘Gharabari and Khalisthana’ as per the information collected under the RTI Act and therefore, there is no bar for its settlement as per the policy of the Temple Administration. It is further submitted that the application for such settlement of the schedule land is pending before the Authority concerned and in that regard, an enquiry was also held and while stating so, he refers to a field enquiry report, a copy of which is at Anneuxre-12.Along with the above report, a copy of the review proceeding as at Anneuxre-15 is placed reliance on. In fact, Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 referring to the said review proceeding submits that the case of the petitioner is decided to be considered after disposal of the writ petition. It is

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

stated by Mr. Satpathy that the claim of the petitioner may be considered by Temple Administration in view of the decision in the Review Meeting i.e. Annexure-15 dated 29^th March, 2014.

¶21

Having regard to the counter affidavit of Temple Administration-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 besides the additional affidavit and rejoinder and in view of the fact that the petitioner claims kissam of the schedule land as ‘Gharabari and khalisthana’ instead of ‘Patita’, the Court is of the view that it should be examined by the concerned Authority as in any case the same is to be dealt with in the light of the decision in Annexure-15.

¶22

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No. 1 to consider the plea of the petitioner with regard to settlement of the schedule land on the ground so urged in terms of the Uniform Policy of the Temple Administration and to pass necessary order in respect thereof after providing him an opportunity of hearing and considering all such materials annexed to the rejoinder and thereafter to pass necessary order according to law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

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

Maa Tarini Rice Mill v. Cao,Jagannath Templ

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maa Tarini Rice Mill v. Cao,Jagannath Templ

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

Debesh Ch.Nayak Vs State

Dhruba Behera Vs Collector,Puri

Somanath Gamango Vs State of Odisha

Sukanya Das Vs Mausam Ku.Singh

Prakash Raghunath Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Chhetambar Bhoi Vs State of Odisha