Sarojini Bal Vs State of Odisha

“Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue rule nisi for calling upon the opp. Party No.5 for show cause as to why the direction will not be issued for settlement of the govt. land as mentioned in this petition in favour of the petitioner as they is landless scheduled caste persons and they have been encroaching the same by residing thereupon since long (more than 50 years). This Hon'ble Court may make its Rule absolute if the said opp. party fails to submit sufficient cause or show insufficient cause, and after hearing from the parties this Hon'ble Court may direct in the writ of mandamus the following directions.

¶16

i. To direct to the opp. party No.5 to refer the application of the petitioner to the opp. party No.4 for settlement of the Govt. land in favour of the petitioner as per the provision U/s 8 (A) of the OPLE Act, Signature Not Verified 1972,

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 18-Sep-2024 11:06:07

¶18

ii. To direct to the opp. party No.5 to initiate proceeding as per the application made by the petitioner on 25.03.2024 for the interest of jus tice and equity as this case in question.”

¶19

2

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner had filed a representation vide Annexure-3 before the Opposite Party No.5/Tahasildar, Dharmasala for settlement of the land in question in her favour, the same remains unattended to till today.

¶22

At this juncture, learned counsel for the State submits that instead of filing of petition as per the provision under Section 8 (A) of the OPLE Act,1972 for the above purpose, the Petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-3 before the Tahasildar, Dharmasala.

¶23

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merit of the case, this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5/Tahasildar, Dharmasala for settlement of land in question in her favour as per the provision under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 within 15 working days hence and the said application of the Petitioner shall be disposed of within a period of 60 days thereafter in accordance with law.

¶24

It is further directed that, if the Petitioner approaches the Signature Not VerifiedTahasildar, Dharmasala as per the above noted provision within Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication the time stipulated herein above, no coercive action shall be Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 18-Sep-2024 11:06:07

¶25

Murmu

¶26

3

¶27

taken against the Petitioner, till the matter is taken up by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 18-Sep-2024 11:06:07

Sarojini Bal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini Bal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Kulamani Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bulu Parida Vs State of Odisha

Jyotiraj Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Harekrushna Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Union of India Vs Sarmista Priyadarsini