Latangini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with a direction to opposite parties to extend the period of lease and to pay compensation towards the loss sustained by them being an SHG and further to initiate action against opposite party No.7 to 10 for the reasons stated.

¶16

Referring to the resolution dated 30^th October, 2024 at Annexure-1, it is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed the lease in respect of the pond in question and in that connection, the amount determined was deposited as per Annexure-2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued with the work order as per Annexure-3. In the meantime, according to Mr.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Tripathy, learned counsel, the private opposite parties committed mischief and caused loss to the petitioner which was reported to the concerned BDO, who, thereafter, intimated it to the PS vide Annexure-4 for action as deemed proper. The submission is that the Sarpanch of the concerned GP, namely, opposite party No.5 sent a letter vide Annexure-5 to the petitioner by claiming that the lease period has already expired. Referring to Annexure-1, it is claimed by the petitioner that the lease is for a period of three years and may be extended by another two years, referring to which, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel would submit that such claim as per Annexure-5 is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is addressed to opposite party Nos.3 and 4 as per Annexures-7 and 9 but it has not yielded any result, hence, necessary direction may perhaps be issued.

¶19

Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶20

Prima facie, from Annexure-1, the Court finds that the lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of three years in view of the resolution dated 30^th October, 2024 and thereafter, the work order was issued as per Annexure-3. But, such lease is alleged to have expired in view of Annexure-5 as claimed by the Sarpanch of the GP. Recording the submission of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and as the grievance of the petitioner has not been considered despite representation dated 26^th August, 2025 i.e. Annexure-9 with a

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

reply received from Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, the Court is of the view that the mischief alleged against the private opposite parties is required to be enquired in to and for the said purpose, the petitioner should be allowed the liberty to represent the authorities concerned once again mentioning therein in detail regarding the kind of mischief committed and in view of the emergent situation, subsequent to the demand as per Annexure-5 of the GP, for a decision at the earliest.

¶23

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to submit a detailed representation addressed to opposite party No.3 and upon receiving the same within seven days from today, it shall be duly considered and disposed of by him within next seven days positively. It is further directed that till such time, any such decision by opposite party No.3, necessary measures may be taken in order to prevent any onward incident taking place in view of the lease granted to the petitioner so revealed from Annexure-1. It is further directed that if the lease in question has not expired, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect thereof, till the representation is disposed of by opposite party No.3.

¶25

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 16-Oct-2025 13:58:29

¶28

Rojina

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Latangini Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latangini Sahoo 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umakanta Chhotaray Vs State of Orissa

Shovan Kumar Sahoo Vs Puspanjali Swain

Duryodhan Sahu Vs Home Dept.of Orissa

Jayaram Nayak Vs State Election Commission, Bbsr

Gouribala Das Vs Ramachandra Das

Md.Wahab Khan Vs State of Odisha