Disposed

Raj Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Sept 2024WP(C)/18192/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a direction to the Tahasildar, Baliapal to evict encroachers from Government land per an OPLE eviction order. The Tahasildar's inquiry confirmed encroachment but noted ownership claims in pending legal proceedings. As a civil suit on the same property was pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, the Court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of it, leaving t

What the court decided

AI extract

Raj Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18192 of 2024

¶3

Raj Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AGA

CORAM:

Order No.

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER

¶11

12.09.2024

¶12

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2 . In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for

¶14

a direction from this Court to the Tahasildar, Baliapal/Opposite Party No.4 for evicting the unauthorized encroachers from the Government land in question as per the order of eviction passed in the OPLE Encroachment Case No.705 of 2022.

¶15

3. Pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by this Court learned counsel for the State submits the inquiry report prepared by the Tahasildar, Baliapal. The relevant portion of the said inquiry report is extracted herein below:-

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2024 17:10:07

¶18

“xxx xxx xxx xxx Conclusion : The field enquiry confirms that the encroachment has occurred, but the encroachers have raised claims of ownership supported by ongoing legal proceedings. The status of the encroachment is thus complicated by the sub judice nature of the case.”

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, also submits that since a Civil Suit vide C.S. No.1500/1819 of 2022-I pertaining to the selfsame property is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, the Petitioner should approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

¶21

5. Looking to the above inquiry report and since a Civil Suit on the selfsame property is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, this Court is of the view that the prayer made in this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. However, this Court directs that if the Petitioner so desires, he can approach the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore by way of an appropriate application.

¶22

6. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶24

Ayaskanta

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2024 17:10:07

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Raj Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raj Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bichitrananda Lenka Vs Union of India

Akshya K.Pradhan Vs Cesu and Anr.

Braja Kishore Rout Vs Central Bank of India,Jajpur

Niranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Behera Vs State of Odisha