Disposed¶24

Siba Prasad Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2024WP(C)/21828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ petition (W.P.(C) No.21828 of 2024, Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi, 10.09.2024) concerning non-eviction of private opposite parties encroaching on Government land (Khata No.823, Plot No.963, Ac.0.1800 dec., Mouza-Deula, Baliapal, Balasore); demarcation case; representations to Tahasildar/Collector/Sub-Collector; writ declined as inter-se dispute; liberty to approach appropriate forum; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief; writ petition disposed of without adjudicating the merits. ¶24

Siba Prasad Jena Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21828 of 2024

¶2

Siba Prasad Jena

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv.

¶5

Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

Opposite Parties Represented By AGA Mr. D. Mund

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order

10.09.2024

No.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶17

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the Revenue Authorities in not evicting the Private Opposite Parties over the Government land bearing Khata No.823, Plot No.963, Area Ac.0.1800 dec. Mouza-Deula, P.S/Tahsil-Baliapal, Dist- Balasore.

¶18

3. Heard learned counsels for the Parties.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the above said land is a government land, which is the only passage to ingress and outgress to the land of the

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Petitioner bearing Khata No.406, Plot No.964, Area Ac.0.1200 dec., Mouza-Deula, P.S./Tahasil-Baliapal, District-Balasore. As the Private Opposite Parties made obstruction over the said land, the Petitioner initiated a demarcation case against the private Opposite Parties. After demarcation it has been found that the private opposite Parties made encroachment over the said land. Hence, the Petitioner filed a representation before the learned Tahasildar, Baliapal, Collector, District-Balasore and Sub-Collector, District- Balasore. However, the Opposite Parties acknowledges the representation of the present Petitioner, they did not take any action to evict the private Opposite Parties from the said land.

¶23

5. Without going into the merits of the case and since the present case of the Petitioner is an inter-se dispute between the Parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Sumitra Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 19:43:03

¶28

Judge

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Siba Prasad Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siba Prasad Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of Odisha

Udaya Narayan Barik Vs State

Anil Ku Beura Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Dash Vs Collector Cum D.M. Puri

Birendra Kumar Mangaraj @ Bapi Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Jeneeta Baa Vs State of Odisha