The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14304 of 2023 Harihar Pradhan & Others Petitioners Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. YSP Babu, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.07.2023 01. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party No.1 to 4. 2. No notice need be issued to opposite party Nos. 5 & 6, since the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to the opposite parties not to take any steps to evict them from the leasehold land without providing an opportunity of hearing and considering their grievance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners are from lower economic strata of the society, the State Government in the year, 1981 formulated a Scheme and granted them the lease under Annexure-1 series vide ERRP Scheme by issuing Dafayati Rights Certificates. It is further submitted that the said right under the Scheme is not transferable or heritable and as per the certificates issued, it shall be valid till further orders but in the meantime, action has been initiated for their eviction by a proceeding in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2021. It is also Page 1 of 4 submitted that despite orders of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.10101 and 25755 of 2021 under Annexures 2 and 3 respectively, it has not yielded any result, inasmuch as, opposite party No.4 initiated action for eviction. It is contended that without proper inquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are issued with the Dafayati Rights Certificates and in possession of the schedule lands, impugned action has been contemplated. It is claimed that an inquiry was conducted pursuant to the order in W.P.(C) No. 10101 of 2021 by a team led by opposite party No. 3, which reached at a conclusion that the petitioners are no more financially unsound. Furthermore, it is submitted that a report was received by opposite party No.4 to the effect that the economic productivity of cashew nut plantation is about 20 years and in the meantime, already 40 years have elapsed and therefore, such productivity has been entirely lost and with such a conclusion, the opposite parties have taken a decision to evict them which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal, more so when, no opportunity of hearing was provided by the team which held so under the authority of opposite party No.3. So therefore, according to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 should be directed not to evict them without following due process of law. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State- opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the lease was granted in the year 1982 and in the meantime, as per Annexure-4, the plantation has lost its productivity and that apart, the petitioners have been found to be no more financially unsound and therefore, they are to be evicted and hence, therefore the impugned action is not unjust as it has been alleged. 6. No doubt, the petitioners have been granted the Dafayati Rights under the Scheme. In other words, the families of the petitioners have been in possession of the lands in question ever Page 2 of 4 since 1982 on account of the lease issued under Annexure-1 series. However, in the meantime, an inquiry was held by the local Administration and accordingly findings have been rendered vide Annexures-4 and 5, which are to the effect that the cashew nut plantation has lost its productivity so also the petitioners are financially no more unsound. The petitioners challenges that since such rights are exercised since 1982 and without following due process of law with decisions vide Annexures-4 and 5 being reached at, any such action by not providing them an opportunity of hearing and considering the representation under Annexure-6 would be grossly arbitrary. The Court is well aware of the Dafayati Rights of the petitioners which is being claimed by virtue of Annexure-1 Series but at the same time, it cannot be oblivious of the fact that inquiry has been held by opposite party Nos.3 and 4 with the decisions vide Annexures-4 and 5 which at no point in time have been challenged. However, the petitioners are said to have approached opposite party No.2 with the representation under Annexure-6 challenging the impugned action so also the decision of the local Administration vide Annexures-4 and 5. If that be so, the Court is of the view that as the families of petitioners have been granted lease under Annexure-1 series and it is claimed that they are still in possession of the lands ever since then, notwithstanding, any such decisions of the local Administration, the Court is of the considered view that before taking any action for eviction on the anvil of Annexures-4 and 5, since, they have submitted a representation under Annexure-6, it should be examined according to law. In other words, the petitioners should be provided an opportunity to raise all such grounds available to them under law even with respect to Annexures-4 and 5 for a decision by opposite party No.2 as per and in accordance with law considering Annexure-6, which would serve the purpose and advance the cause of justice. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. Page 3 of 4 8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and examine the representation under Annexure-6 after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to pass a final order thereon preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also directed that the petitioners shall have the liberty to raise all such grounds as available to them according to law before opposite party No.4 in connection with Misc. Case No.2 of 2021, however, till such time, the representation is examined and disposed of by opposite party No.2 within the stipulated time, status quo shall be maintained vis-à-vis the schedule lands. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Balaram Judge (R.K. Pattanaik) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Jul-2023 10:51:39 Page 4 of 4