Disposed

Shankar Mahanandia v. Uday Ku.Mohaptra

Orissa HC21 Jun 2024CONTC/120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order dated 08.09.2015 regarding land mutation, the Court examined the respondent's show-cause affidavit detailing the Ministry of Forest clearance process. Finding that the delay resulted from statutory requirements and lack of prior opportunity to the respondent, the Court held no case was made out for willful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceeding stands dropped; liberty granted to ventilate grievance before the appropriate forum.

Shankar Mahanandia Vs Uday Ku.Mohaptra — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CONTC No. 120 of 2016

¶3

Shankar Mahanandia …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.R. Barik, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Uday Kumar Mohapatra, Tahasildar, Opposite Party Subdega

¶7

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

Order No.

07.

21.06.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of this Court’s order dated 08.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.8257 of 2015. It is apparent that the said order was passed by this Court on the very first day when the matter was taken up without giving any opportunity to the opposite party-State of Odisha to file a counter affidavit.

¶16

Following is the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2015:

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that though by order dated 25.6.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur, opposite party no.1 directed the Tahasildar, Subdega, opposite party no.2, to make necessary correction of existing final ROR by recording the case land in the names of the legal heir

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

of the lease holder after its proper comparison of Sabik & Hal plots with field visit on the basis of the lease granted vide lease case no.1459/74, but till yet the Tahasildar, Subdega, opposite party no.2 has not taken any steps. He further submits that the said order was communicated to opposite party no.2 on 22.08.2014.

¶20

In view of the fact that by order dated 25.6.2014, the opposite party no.1 had directed the opposite party no.2 to make necessary correction or ROR & the opposite party no.2 received the said order, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.2 to comply the aforesaid order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶21

A show-cause reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite party/contemnor, in which it has been stated that the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur had initiated Mutation Case bearing No.175/2014 on 18.09.2014 after the order 25.06.2014 was passed in Lease Case No.1459 of 1974 and had directed the Amin of Subdega Tahasil to conduct field verification. Accordingly, the Amin had conducted the field verification and submitted his report, wherein it was mentioned that the suit land lying fallow without any cultivation or possession of anybody. It has further been stated that a clarification was sought from the District Office for settlement of government land with kissam Jungle vide Letter No.3587, dated 17.12.2014. Accordingly, the District Office issued necessary clarification in this regard on 21.02.2015 along with an order passed by the Collector, Sundargarh in the note sheet, wherein it was observed that the government land with kissam forest

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

could not be settled in favour of the petitioner without grant of permission from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

¶24

5 . Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said show-cause affidavit are also relevant which are being reproduced herein below:

¶25

“6. That it is humbly submitted that the deponent disposed of the case on 16.10.2015 without recording the Govt. land in favour of the petitioner as Hal kissam of suit plots bearing No.2671 and 2673 is Gramya Jungle and Plot No.1479 with Kissam GodaII recorded in rakhit Khata and Sabik kissam of all suit plots are jungle, which attracts the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is a well settled fact that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are applicable to the revenue lands recorded as forest. Govt. of India, Ministry of Forest, Environment and Climate Change have stipulated that for diversion of forest land for non-forest use under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, prior approval of Ministry of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of India is required.

¶26

7. That the deponent after going through the Amin report and clarification of the District Office as well as basing upon the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 disposed of the Mutation Case No.175 of 2014 on 16.10.2015, i.e. within the period of three months as directed by the Hon’ble High Court.”

¶27

The petitioner has filed a reply to the said show-cause affidavit denying the factual aspect of the matter as asserted in the show-cause reply.

¶28

In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this contempt petition wherein there is allegation of willful disobedience of an order passed on the very first day in the writ petition.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

In my considered opinion, no case of willful disobedience of this Court’s order is made out in view of the stand taken on behalf of the opposite party/contemnor in their show-cause affidavit.

¶31

9. The contempt proceeding stands dropped accordingly.

¶32

It goes without saying that the petitioner shall have the liberty to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for settlement of the land in question.

¶33

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶34

S. Behera

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 4 of 4

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2024 13:06:45

Shankar Mahanandia v. Uday Ku.Mohaptra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Mahanandia v. Uday Ku.Mohaptra

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

Prabhat Ranjan Dash Vs Dr.Sandhya Gupta

Sarat Ch.Swain Vs Saurabh Garg

Gitarani Sutar Vs Saurabh Garg

Sarada P.Biswal Vs Saurabh Garg

Pitei @ Pitabas Vs State

Gajendra Nath Sethy Vs Saurabh Garg