Quashed

Gajendra Prasad Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Sept 2024WP(C)/23911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an order confirming encroachment by the Collector, noting a pendency of a rectification petition. Setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the Additional Commissioner to conclude the rectification petition within one month and fixed the status quo on the disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 21.06.2024. Direct the Additional Commissioner to conclude proceedings in Revision Case No.400 of 2023 within one month and maintain status quo on the disputed land.

Gajendra Prasad Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23911 of 2024

¶2

Gajendra Prasad Sahu & Ors. …. Petitioner(s)

¶3

Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order

No.

ORDER

24.09.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2 . This matter was not in today’s list. On being mentioned in the first hour, this matter is taken up through Special Notice.

¶15

3 . Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶16

4 . In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners of the land in question, have challenged the order dated 21.06.2024/Annexure-8 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Revision Case No.2 of 2023.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been in possession of the land in question since their forefathers. The said land was also recorded in the names of the predecessors of the Petitioners in the 1929

¶18

Settlement operation so also in the 1977 Major Settlement Signature Not Verified operation.

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Sep-2024 17:56:17

¶20

6. He further submits that upon getting necessary permission from the family members of the Petitioners the inhabitants of

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

the locality were using a portion of the said land as a road whereas the nature of the said land was private plot. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though the present Petitioners are the exclusive owners of the land in question, in subsequent settlement operation the said portion of the land in question used as road has been erroneously recorded as “Sarvasadharana”.

¶23

7. Thereafter, on the selfsame land the Tahasildar, Bhadrak initiated Encroachment Cases vide Encroachment Case Nos.1029, 1030 and 1031 of 2022 against the present Petitioners. Upon receiving notices in the above noted encroachment cases, the Petitioners preferred appeal vide OPLE Appeal No.50 of 2022, which was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioners have no right, title and interest over the said land. The Tahasildar, Bhadrak was also directed to take steps for eviction of the Petitioners from the plot Nos.1028, 1009 and 351.

¶24

8. Soon after getting the said order of the appellate authority the Petitioners preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.30643 of 2023, which was disposed of permitting the Petitioners to prefer revision. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred a Revision vide Revision Case No.02/2023 before the

¶25

Collector, Bhadrak. In the meantime, in order to rectify the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA mistake occurred in recording the status of the land in Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Sep-2024 17:56:17 q ues tion, the Petitioners also preferred a Revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhadrak vide Revision Case No.400 of 2023.

¶28

9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though the revision at the instance of the Petitioners for correction of the land in question vide Revision Case No.400 of 2023 is pending, the another revision against the order of the Sub-Collector vide Revision Case No.02 of 2023 has been disposed of confirming the orders passed by the SubCollector, Bhadrak as well as the Tahasildar, Bhadrak. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 has been issued by the Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Revision Case No.2 of 2023.

¶29

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners here alleges that while passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 the Collector, Bhadrak has not taken into account the fact of pendency of a revision for correction of the land in question before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhadrak. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 needs to be quashed.

¶30

11. Considering the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the view that prior to deciding the revision vide

¶31

Revision Case No.2 of 2023 the Collector, Bhadrak should Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: AYASKANTA JENA have awaited the result in the Revision Case No.400 of 2023. Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Sep-2024 17:56:17 H enc e, this Court while setting aside the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Revision

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

Case No.02 of 2023, directs the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhadrak to conclude the proceeding vide Revision Case No.400 of 2023 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

12. It is further directed that till a decision is taken in the matter by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhadrak status quo as on today in respect of the disputed land in question shall be maintained by all the parties concerned.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶37

Ayaskanta

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Sep-2024 17:56:17

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Gajendra Prasad Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Prasad Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Barik Vs State of Odisha

M/S Ashirbad Healthcare, Vs State of Odisha

Sunil Kumar Nahak Vs Union of India

Panshul Sharma Vs Union of India

Sasmita Kar Vs Andhra Bank

Dinesh Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha