Dismissed¶7

Ramesh Ch.Sabat v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC8 Oct 2024WP(C)/9972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of W.P.(C) No.9972 of 2016 for want of locus standi; petitioners sought direction to clear alleged encroachment over Government land by O.Ps.6 & 7; O.Ps.6 & 7 contended land does not belong to Government and title in dispute with SRP Case No.1225 of 2016 pending before Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; order dated 08.10.2024; State of Odisha & Ors.; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

This Court is of the view that the Petitioners have no locus standi to prefer this Writ Petition. ¶6

Ramesh Ch.Sabat Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9972 of 2016 Ramesh Chandra Sabat & …. Petitioner(s) Anr.

¶3

Mr. Amit Pr. Bose, Mr. S.S. Routray, N. Hota, S.K. Dwibedi, Mrs. V. Kar,

¶4

Mr. D.J. Sahoo, Mr. S.S. Dash, Advs.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC for O.Ps.1, 2, 3 & 5 Mr. Prasant Kumar Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.4

¶8

Mr. Suvam Sharma, Adv. for O.Ps.6 & 7

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order

ORDER

No. 08.10.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought for

¶17

a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 for clearing the encroachment over the Government land in question made by the Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that due to the unauthorized encroachment over the Government land in

¶19

question by the Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7, the Petitioners are Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed suffering a lot.

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Oct-2024 14:51:36

¶21

4. A t this juncture, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 submits that the land in question does not belong

¶22

Page 1 of 2

¶23

to the Government. He further contends that the title of the land in question is in dispute. Hence, a proceeding vide SRP Case No.1225 of 2016 pertaining to the selfsame land is pending before the learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement.

¶24

5. In the process, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 submits that the Petitioners have no locus standi to prefer this Writ Petition.

¶25

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners have no locus standi to prefer this Writ Petition.

¶26

7. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Ayaskanta

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Oct-2024 14:51:36

¶32

Page 2 of 2

Ramesh Ch.Sabat v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Ch.Sabat v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhadev Patra Vs State of Odisha

Bhubana Mehera Vs State of Odisha

Nilamani Maharana Vs Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur

Biswanath Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ratikanta Patra Vs State of Odisha

Padman Mahanandia Vs State of Odisha