Sunita Devi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Apr 2024WP(C)/8063/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.8063 of 2023, Sunita Devi v. State of Odisha (R.K. Pattanaik, J., 08.04.2024): eviction from Government land; settlement of Plot No.1028 (part), Khata No.397; claim of 40 years' possession via RoR remarks column; liberty to file representation to opposite party No.3; decision within three weeks; status quo on schedule land; parity with W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to opposite party No.3 within a fortnight; opposite party No.3 to consider it and decide as per law at the earliest, preferably within the next three weeks; status quo to be maintained in respect of the schedule land until such decision. ¶¶20

Sunita Devi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, claiming possession of schedule Plot No.1028 (part) under Khata No.397 for nearly 40 years, are entitled to protection from eviction and settlement of the plot; and how the writ petition should be disposed of without adjudicating the merits.

¶¶14

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition granting the petitioners liberty to submit a detailed representation to opposite party No.3 within a fortnight; upon receipt, the said authority shall consider it and take a decision as per law at the earliest, preferably within the next three weeks.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Until the said authority takes its decision, status quo is to be maintained in respect of the schedule land.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The Court expressly refrained from expressing anything on the merits of the case; the direction was founded on parity with a similarly situated case (order dated 1st March, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2024) in which like liberty had been allowed.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF WITH LIBERTY TO FILE REPRESENTATION AND INTERIM STATUS QUO — Petitioners claimed nearly 40 years' possession of schedule Plot No.1028 (part), Khata No.397, and sought a direction restraining eviction and ordering settlement; the State contended they were in unlawful possession of Government land, the RoR remarks column (Annexure-1) naming one Rabindranath not among the petitioners. Without expressing anything on merits, and in parity with an order dated 1st March, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2024 allowing like liberty in a similarly situated case, the Court disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to opposite party No.3 within a fortnight, with the authority to consider and decide as per law at the earliest, preferably within the next three weeks, and directing maintenance of status quo over the schedule land until such decision. (Paras 4, 6)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8063 of 2023

¶3

Sunita Devi & Others …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. K. K. Rout, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. I. Mohanty, ASC

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

08.04.2024

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to the opposite parties not to evict them from the schedule Plot No.1028 (part) under Khata No.397 of the Mouza in question and to settle it in their favour within a stipulated period.

¶15

In course of hearing, Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the occupants, namely, Pravakar Satpathy, has been allowed to file a detail representation addressed to the authority concerned for a decision on settlement in view of the possession for more than 40 years. In the instant case, according to Mr. Rout, the petitioners are also in possession for nearly 40 years and while claiming so, he refers to a copy of the RoR with its remarks column regarding such possession. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State however submits that the petitioners are in unlawful possession of the Govt. land. It is further submitted that

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

the remarks column of the RoR i.e. Annexure-1 reveals the name of one Rabindranath, who is not one among the petitioners.

¶18

Without expressing anything on merits of the case and since in a similarly situated case, such liberty has been allowed to represent the authority concerned, as Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy order dated 1^st March, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2024, the Court is of the view that the petitioners should also approach opposite party No.3 with a detailed representation seeking appropriate relief for a decision as per and in accordance with law.

¶19

Hence, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty granted in favour of the petitioners to submit a representation addressed to opposite party No.3 within a fortnight from today and in the event, the same is received from them, the said authority shall consider it and take a decision thereon as per law at the earliest preferably within next three weeks and till such time, to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule land.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued 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: 10-Apr-2024 10:35:30

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Sunita Devi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarjan Behera Vs Sachidananda Naik, O.A.S.

Ekadasi Behera Vs Sachidananda Naik, O.A.S.

Kamal Prasad Panigrahi Vs Collector, Nabrangpur

Rashmi Ranjan Parida Vs Gyanendra Jena

Dulei Rana Vs Rajendra Sahu

M/S. Bajaj Allinz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gitanjali Purohit