Disposed¶20

Santosh Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Feb 2024WP(C)/3468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land settlement; representation pending before Tahasildar, Bari; OPLE Act; direction to decide representation within four weeks after hearing; status quo over schedule land; Hal Plot No.2993; Hal Khata No.982; Tahasil-Bari; district Jajpur; Santosh Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No.3468 of 2024; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; decided 21.02.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.3 (Tahasildar, Bari) to consider and examine the petitioners' representation (Annexure-4), afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, and pass orders in accordance with law, completing the exercise preferably within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; status quo over the schedule land to be maintained until then. ¶20

Santosh Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party No.3 (Tahasildar, Bari) should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation for settlement of the schedule land (Hal Plot No.2993, Ac.0.650 decimals, Hal Khata No.982, Mouza under Tahasil-Bari, district Jajpur) in accordance with law, including the OPLE Act.

¶13

Court's answer

Without expressing anything on the merits, the Court held that the petitioners' representation (Annexure-4), pending before opposite party No.3, should be examined according to law in light of their grievance for settlement of the schedule land under the OPLE Act.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider and examine Annexure-4 and pass a necessary order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶20

Key takeaways

The entire exercise was to be completed at the earliest, preferably within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and until such time status quo was to be maintained vis-a-vis the schedule land.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction disposed of without expressing any view on merits: the petitioners, claiming long possession, sought settlement of schedule land (Hal Plot No.2993, Adc.0.650 decimals, Hal Khata No.982, Mouza under Tahasil-Bari, district Jajpur) via a representation pending before the Tahasildar, Bari (opposite party No.3). The Court directed opposite party No.3 to consider and examine the representation (Annexure-4), hear the petitioners, and pass orders in accordance with law, including under the OPLE Act, preferably within four weeks, maintaining status quo over the schedule land in the interregnum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3468 of 2024

¶3

Santosh Kumar Samal & Others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S.K. Mallick, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha &Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶10

ORDER 21.02.2024

¶11

Order No.

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties.

¶13

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.3 to settle the schedule land in respect of Hal Plot No.2993 measuring an area of Ac.0.650 decimals situate under Hal Khata No.982 in the concerned Mouza of Tahasil-Bari in the in the district of Jajpur in their favour by considering the representation under Annexure-4.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question for many years and for such possession, it may be settled with them and claims such settlement through the representation under Annexure-5 which is pending decision of the Tahasildar, Bari-opposite party No.3 and hence, therefore, direction is required to be issued in that regard.

¶15

Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties, considering the limited prayer of the petitioners, submits that

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

necessary direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.3 for a decision on Annexure-2.

¶18

Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, who are said to have submitted the representation i.e. Annexure-4 and pending before opposite party No.3 for a decision, it should be examined according to law with their grievance as to the settlement of the schedule land according to the provisions of the OPLE Act, which would rather serve the purpose for the present.

¶19

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider and examine Annexure-4 received from the petitioners and thereafter to pass necessary order as per and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to them and to dispose of the matter and to complete the entire exercise at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, to maintain status quo vis-à-vis the schedule land.

¶21

A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶22

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶23

TUDU

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 22-Feb-2024 13:23:34

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Santosh Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Samal 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

Maheswar Behera Vs Chakradhar Padhi, Oas

Lily Kandi Vs Ranjan Parida, Tahasildar, Gop

Bidyut Bhusan Kar Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Ku.Ray Vs Collector,Bhadrak

Bibhu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Sanatan Naik Vs Union of India