Disposed¶29

Rahim Saha v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Sept 2024WP(C)/23649/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Settlement of government land; OPLE Act, 1972 Section 8(A); landless Scheduled Caste person; encroachment and residence for over 50 years; Tahasildar Tangi; unattended representation (Annexure-3); application dated 25.04.2024; 15 working days to apply; disposal within 60 days; no coercive action; writ of mandamus; W.P.(C) No.23649 of 2024; disposed of without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.5/Tahasildar, Tangi for settlement of the land under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 within 15 working days; the said application to be disposed of within 60 days thereafter in accordance with law; and no coercive action against the Petitioner until the matter is taken up by the Tahasildar, Tangi. ¶29

Rahim Saha Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, described as a landless Scheduled Caste person who has been encroaching upon and residing on the government land for more than 50 years, should be granted settlement of that land under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972, including referral of his application by Opposite Party No.5 to Opposite Party No.4.

¶17

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court directed the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.5/Tahasildar, Tangi for settlement of the land in question in his favour as per Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 within 15 working days.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The application of the Petitioner, once made to the Tahasildar, Tangi, shall be disposed of within a period of 60 days thereafter in accordance with law.

¶27

Key takeaways

If the Petitioner approaches the Tahasildar, Tangi as per Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 within the stipulated time, no coercive action shall be taken against him until the matter is taken up by the Tahasildar, Tangi.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.23649 of 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J., order dated 26.09.2024): A writ petition by Rahim Saha, described as a landless Scheduled Caste person encroaching upon and residing on government land for more than 50 years, sought directions for settlement of that land under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972, including referral of his application by Opposite Party No.5 to Opposite Party No.4. His earlier representation (Annexure-3) to the Tahasildar, Tangi had remained unattended. Without going into the merits, the Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Tangi under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 within 15 working days, with the application to be disposed of within 60 days thereafter in accordance with law, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner until the matter is taken up by the Tahasildar. The Writ Petition was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23649 of 2024

¶3

Rahim Saha

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

………. Opposite Parties Mr. Ch. S. Mishra, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

26.09.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

¶16

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer:

¶17

“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

¶18

¶19

direct in the writ of mandamus the following directions.

¶20

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, 1972, ii. To direct to the opp. party No.5 to initiate proceeding as per the application made by the petitioner on 25.04.2024 for the interest of justice and equity as this case in question.

¶21

And for this act of kindness the petitioner is in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

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

¶24

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, Tangi.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

No.5/Tahasildar, Tangi for settlement of land in question in his 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.

¶28

It is further directed that, if the Petitioner approaches the Tahasildar, Tangi as per the above noted provision within the time stipulated herein above, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner, till the matter is taken up by the Tahasildar, Tangi.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶30

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Sumitra

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa,Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 19:11:42

Rahim Saha v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim Saha 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

Jnyanendra Mishra Vs Collector,Jagatsinghpur

K.Raghunatham Subudhi Vs State Bank of India

Sanjay Kumar Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Suryakanta Bose Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Giri Vs State of Odisha

Amos Nayak Vs State of Odisha