Disposed

Daitari Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Mar 2024WP(C)/2833/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filing a stay and direction regarding a work order for construction on disputed land where a civil suit is pending. The petitioner sought cancellation of the work order issued to opposite party No.7 due to a pending civil suit over the schedule land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the state to examine grievance and maintain status quo to prevent construction on the disputed land until a decision is made after hearing both sides.

Daitari Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2833 of 2024

¶3

Daitari Sahu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. C.R. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC CORAM:

¶10

Order No.

¶11

Heard earned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

¶13

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner to cancel the work order issued in favour of opposite party No.7 for construction of a house under Indira Awas Yojana over Plot No.1512 Khata No.177 of Mouza-Goliha in the district of Balasore since the dispute is pending before the civil court.

¶14

Considering the nature of grievance of the petitioner, even before appearance of opposite party No.7, the Court is of the view that the writ petition should be disposed of with the following order.

¶15

Referring to Annexure-1 a copy of the plaint, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute over the schedule land is pending adjudication in C.S. No.9615/2014-I in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Soro, Balasore and by taking advantage of issuance of work order, opposite party No.7 has put

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

up construction over the same and while claiming so, he refers to Annexure-4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached the local authorities with representations under Annexures-2 and 3 but it has not yielded any result.

¶18

The opposite party No.7 is yet to appear pursuant to the Court’s order dated 9th February, 2024.

¶19

Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State submits that the opposite party No.4 may be directed to examine the grievance of the petitioner in view of pendency of the suit and to take necessary action, in case, construction over the schedule land is in progress after providing an opportunity of hearing to opposite party No.7, in whose favour the work order stands issued.

¶20

Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and when on the one hand, a claim is advanced by the petitioner over and in respect of the plot in question and on the other hand, work order has been issued in favour of opposite party No.7 in respect of the self-same land, the Court, in view of the representations i.e. Annexures-2 and 3 submitted and said to have been received by the opposite party No.4, is of the view that such grievance is needed to be immediately examined in view of the claim that opposite party No.7 is taking up construction at present.

¶21

Hence, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.4 to consider grievance of the petitioner under Annexures-2 and 3 and with the hearing of

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

opposite party No.7 shall take a decision within next two weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the sides and till such time, a decision is rendered, there shall be status quo maintained without any construction put up over Plot No.1512, Khata No.177 situate in Mouza-Goliha in the district of Balasore taking cognizance of the fact that there is civil suit pending between the parties.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶27

Tudu

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 05-Mar-2024 12:33:15

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Daitari Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daitari 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

Bhramara Khadia Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Ku.Bhoi Vs Collector,Subarnapu

Pravat Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Geetanjali Digal Vs Narmada Nayak, Tahasildar, Tikabali, Tahasil, Kandhamal

Maguni Sahoo Vs Nikhil Pavan Kalyan, I.A.S

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs Ramesh Kumar Behera, OAS(1)