In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Nardin
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13294 of 2016 Balaram Sa ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjibani Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors.
Legal Reasoning
………. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 25.04.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: Order No. 16. “Under the aforesaid facts and. circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why: (i) The impugned order dated 25.06.2016 under Annexure-6 series passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in OPLE Revision No.35 of 2015 and order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Sub-Collector, Champua_ in Encroachment Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 shall not be quashed/set aside; and (ii) The land situated in village Sundra pertaining to Khata No.147, Plot No.435 of Area Ac 0.150 decimals of Kisam Taila-I shall not be leased out to the petitioner who has made a substantial expenditure for plantation of valuable trees and greenery; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-May-2025 20:07:33 2 (iii) And if the opposite parties do not show cause or show | insufficient cause then the said rule may be made absolute and pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the issue presented in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.A. No.506 of 2016 (Jasobant Parida vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) wherein this Court has held that the order passed by the Revenue Authority is without jurisdiction since the area falls under the urban area and OPP Act shall be applicable to the present Petitioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “23. If very initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, in view of the insertion of “Municipality” to the definition of “Public Premises” under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act. As such, the Estate Officer notified by the State Government under Section 3 of the OPP Act, 1972 has got only jurisdiction to issue such notice and not the Tahasildar under the OPLE Act. 24. In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Nardin, (1996) 4 SCC 178: AIR 1996 SC 1819, the apex Court held that a decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction is a nullity. 25. Therefore, if a proceeding initiated under the OPLE Act, 1972 by issuing notice of eviction by the Tahasildar having no jurisdiction, any order passed by him is nullity in the eye of law and any consequential steps taken under the said Act by the respective authorities also cannot be sustained as they have no jurisdiction, thereby such orders are nullity in the eye of law. 26. Under the OPP Act, the Estate Officer gets jurisdiction under Section 4(1) only where the premises are Public Premises. Section Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-May-2025 20:07:33 Page 2 of 4 3 2(f) of the OPP Act has defined Public Premises. In order that a premises would be Public Premises, if it is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council or Notified Area Council. By way of amendment to the definition of “Public Premises” under Section 2 (f) “Municipality” has been incorporated by way of gazette notification issued on 03.01.2011 that the municipal area comes under the definition of “Public Premises”. Therefore, Kamakhyanagar Notified Area Council, having come under the definition of Public Premises under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act, the action for eviction can only be taken by the competent authority under Section 4 (1) of the OPP Act, i.e., by the Estate Officer and not by the Tahasildar. 27. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by misinterpreting the provisions of law, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant by conforming the order of eviction passed by the Tahasildar and affirmed by appellate authority and re-affirmed by the revisional authority under Sections 12 and 12 (2) of the OPLE Act respectively. As a consequence thereof, the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 24422 of 2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.” 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his possession over the suit land since 1968. He further submits that no such rent receipt had been issued by the revenue authority. The Petitioner had filed notice in Form-A which is not the rent receipt. The Petitioner had also not produced any rent receipt from the year 1968 to 2001-2002. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-May-2025 20:07:33 6. Learned counsel for the State further contends that the kissam of the land is Jungle-II (Government forest land), which is Page 3 of 4 4 highly objectionable under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Hence, without prior approval of the competent authority of forest diversion the same shall not be settled by any Revenue Authority. Therefore, the person is not an eligible homesteadless/landless person as per the provision laid down under various Sections of the OPLE Act. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the judgment passed in the case of Jasobant Parida (supra), this Court disposes of this Writ Petition setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2016 under Annexure-6 series passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in OPLE Revision No.35 of 2015. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Keonjhar to pass order afresh in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Judge Murmu ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-May-2025 20:07:33 Page 4 of 4