Disposed¶25

Chandan Behera @ Chandan Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Feb 2024WP(C)/2971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendor; eviction notice dated 02.02.2024; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 claim an afterthought; settlement of land; Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act 1972 authority; earlier writ W.P.(C) no.34659 of 2023 order dated 18.10.2023; maintainability; abuse of process; remedy by appeal to Sub-Collector; limitation 30 days; Orissa High Court 2024; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of leaving the petitioners to pursue their remedy of appeal before the Sub-Collector within the prescribed limitation of 30 days. ¶25

Chandan Behera @ Chandan Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of leaving the petitioners to pursue their remedy of appeal before the Sub-Collector within the prescribed limitation of 30 days.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable, given petitioner no.1's earlier proceedings before a learned single Judge and the State's contention that the petitioners have resorted to abuse of the process. +2 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The persons who received the impugned eviction notice and are before the Court claiming to be street vendors had earlier claimed settlement of the land as opposed to protection under the Street Vendors Act, 2014; their claim for relief under the 2014 Act clearly appears to be an afterthought.

¶20

Key takeaways

If aggrieved by the impugned eviction notice, the petitioners must find their remedy; an appeal lies to the Sub-Collector and the prescribed period of limitation for such appeal is 30 days.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK — W.P.(C) No. 2971 of 2024, disposed of on 09.02.2024 by a Division Bench of Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ. Thirteen petitioners describing themselves as street vendors sought quashing of a notice of eviction dated 2nd February, 2024 and a direction for settlement of the land in their favour, invoking the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Court noted that petitioner no.1 had earlier moved a learned single Judge in W.P.(C) no.34659 of 2023, disposed of by order dated 18th October, 2023 directing the authority under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 to consider his claim for settlement of the land, and that upon consideration of the representation the impugned eviction notice was issued; the State raised a preliminary point of maintainability alleging abuse of process. Observing that the recipients of the eviction notice had claimed settlement as opposed to protection under the Act of 2014, the Bench held that the claim for relief under the 2014 Act 'clearly appears to be an afterthought'. Counsel undertook that the petitioners would move the Sub-Collector; the Court recorded that the prescribed period of limitation for the appeal to that authority is 30 days, directed that aggrieved petitioners must find their remedy, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2971 of 2024

¶3

Chandan Behera @ Chandan Kumar Behera and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 09.02.2024

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners,

¶14

who are 13 in number. He submits, his clients are street vendor. Petitioner no.1 had moved Court to quash notice of eviction dated 2^nd February, 2024 and consequent direction for settlement of the land in their favour to continue their vending business. The relief is in line with provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. We have seen from said order dated 18^th October, 2023 the learned single Judge recorded that

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

petitioner therein had contended to be in possession of the land for last thirty years.

¶18

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

¶19

Advocate appears on behalf of State and raises point of maintainability. He demonstrates from the petition itself that petitioner no.1 had earlier moved a learned single Judge of this Court by W.P.(C) no.34659 of 2023, disposed of by order dated 18^th October, 2023. The direction was for the authority under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 to consider said petitioner’s claim for settlement of the land. On considering the representation impugned eviction notice was issued. In the circumstances, petitioners have resorted to abuse of the process.

¶20

3. It is clear that one of the petitioners had applied for settlement of the land. They obtained said order dated 18^th October, 2023 of the learned single Judge. It cannot be disputed that the persons who received impugned eviction notice and are before this Court claiming to be street vendors, had claimed settlement as opposed to protection under the Act of 2014. The claim for relief under said Act clearly appears to be an afterthought.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

4. In event petitioners are aggrieved by impugned eviction notice,

¶24

they must find their remedy. Mr. Mishra submits, his clients will move the Sub-Collector. Period of limitation for appeal to said authority is 30 days. He submits further, till before expiry of the period for appeal the authorities be restrained from evicting petitioners. On query from Court Mr. Sharma confirms prescribed period for the appeal is 30 days.

¶25

5. The writ petition is disposed of above.

¶26

(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge

¶27

Sks

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 09-Feb-2024 18:02:35

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Chandan Behera @ Chandan Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Behera @ Chandan Kumar Behera 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

Debi Prasad Bindhani Vs Manasi Parida@Bindhani

Sripada Suar Vs Debadutta Tripathy

Mehboobun Nahar Milky Vs Amarjeet Nayak

Monalisa Mohapatra Vs Jitendra Sahoo

Bijay Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Aska Co-Operative Central Bank Cadre Sampadak Sangha Vs State of Odisha