Sibaram Sahu State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18301 of 2023 Sibaram Sahu State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. L. Sarangi, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. H.H. Dhal, AGA Mr. R. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.[Intervenor] Mr. B. Nayak, Adv. [BMC] CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 07. 2. 3.
Decision
ORDER 14.11.2023 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. Heard. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by opposite party no.2 in U.C. Appeal No.5 of 2018 under Annexure-14. 4. Mr. L. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that one Prasanna Kumar Das, being a member of Capital Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., applied for allotment of a piece of government land at Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, which stands recorded in the name of General Administration Department in Hal Settlement ROR prepared and published in the year 1988. In the year 1965, the Board of Director of the said society allotted the said land bearing revenue plot no.336, G.A. Department drawing plot no.696, khata no.1033, Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit-II, Saheed Nagar, area comprising Ac.0.106 decimals under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha vide allotment letter dated 24.08.1965 in favour of Prasanna Kumar Das. Thereafter, Prasanna Kumar Das was directed to deposit the premium of the said case land and to execute the lease deed in his favour. But, he failed to deposit the premium of the case land within the stipulated time, for which the land could not be settled in his favour. The petitioner, being the landless person, occupied the Page 1 of 4 case land and constructed an asbestos house over the case land in the year 1970 and since then he is staying there along with his family. Thereafter, Prasanna Kumar Das had approached the Director of Estate, G.A. Department on 25.09.1979 by filing an application stating that some encroachers have encroached the case land and have made construction over the same and staying there and, thereby, made a prayer to remove the encroachment and to settle the land in his favour. But, no action was taken by the GA department. After the death of Prasanna Kumar Das, his wife had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 14457 of 2011 with a prayer to the opposite parties to allot the land and register the same in her favour. In the said writ petition, the State Government filed counter affidavit stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable after long lapse of 46 years and furthermore Prasanna Kumar Das had failed to deposit the premium of the land, as a result of which the allotment was cancelled and, therefore, it cannot be settled in the name of the wife of Prasanna Kumar Das. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2012 directing opposite party no.3 to register the case land in favour of the wife of the deceased Prasanna Kumar Das. The wife of Prasanna Kumar Das further failed to make payment of the premium, for which the said land could not be recorded and registered in her name and accordingly it continues to stand recorded in the name of GA Department. The petitioner, who is in possession of the said land since 1970, had approached the GA Department in the year 2015 to record the suit land in his favour, as he is in possession of the suit land and he is ready and willing to deposit the premium of the land in question. But the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation initiated a proceeding under Section 19 (1) of the ODA Act, 1982 and UAP Case No.231 of 2017 was initiated on the strength of a written complaint filed by the wife of late Prasanna Kumar Das, namely, Page 2 of 4 Smit. Prafulla Kumari Das. Consequentially, notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the construction made by the petitioner shall not be demolished, as permission from BDA, as required under Section 15 of the ODA Act, 1982 was not taken prior to making construction over the case land. In any case, the authority passed order of eviction and against the order of eviction, the petitioner preferred appeal. But the order of eviction has been confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further contended that against the order of eviction confirmed in appeal, the petitioner has already moved the court below by filing C.S. No. 1292 of 2009, where the petitioner claimed for declaration of right, title and interest over the property in question and, as such, the same is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for adjudication. Therefore, the civil suit, which is pending should be adjudicated by the competent civil court in accordance with law. 5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that if the petitioner already approached the learned civil court for declaration of right, title and interest, that itself indicates that he is in unauthorized possession of the land in question and, as such, he is liable for eviction. Therefore, the order of eviction so passed by the authority and made confirmed in appeal is well justified, which does not warrant interference of this Court. 6. Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel, who filed an application for intervention on behalf of Smt. Prafulla Kumari Das, the wife of late Prasanna Kumar Das, contended that the land has been settled in favour of the wife of Prasanna Kumar Das and lease deed has already been executed in her favour. Therefore, the petitioner has no right, which has been claimed in the present writ Page 3 of 4 petition. Consequentially, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that even though Smt. Prafulla Kumari Das, the wife of Prasanna Kumar Das filed an application for intervention, the same was not allowed and only opportunity of hearing was given to her to know the factual background of the case. As such, the land in question having been settled in favour of the wife of Prasanna Kumar Das, the petitioner has no right to continue in the land in question. As such, the order of eviction passed by the authority, which has been confirmed in appeal is well justified. But fact remains, since the petitioner has already approached the civil court claiming declaration for right, title and interest over the land in question, the same should be adjudicated in accordance with law. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority, by which the eviction order passed by the original authority has been confirmed. Consequentially, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate civil court in C.S. No. 1292 of 2009, which is pending adjudication. 9. The interim order dated 05.07.2023 passed in I.A. No. 8450 of 2023 stands vacated. Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-Nov-2023 16:43:19 (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 4 of 4