Orissa High Court
WP(C)/31785/2020 on 24 November, 2020
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
W.P.(C) No. 31785 of 2020
02. 24.11.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is
taken up through Videoconferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Swayambhu Mishra,
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-
opposite parties.
3. Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, prays for a
direction to restrain the opposite parties, more
particularly opposite party No.3-Tahasildar, Kandhamal
from evicting the petitioner from the land pertaining to
Sabik Khata No.31, Sabik Plot No.50, which
corresponds to Hal Khata No.129, Hal Plot No.167 to an
extent of Ac.0.055 decimal in mouza Penji Sahi under
Kandhamal Tahasil in the district of Kandhamal (for
short, 'the case land') without following due procedure
of law.
4. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is in possession of the case
land, since the time of her ancestors, which would be
more than 100 years. During settlement operation, the
petitioner had made endeavour for recording of the land
in her favour and the Yadast was also prepared in her
name. But, ultimately it was recorded in Government
Khata. It is his submission that the petitioner is a
landless poor person and has no other place to reside.
But, the Tahasildar, Kandhamal (OP No.3) is now taking
steps for eviction without following due procedure of
2
law. Hence, finding no other alternative the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
5. Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State, on the other hand, submits that if the
Tahasildar, Kandhamal contemplates eviction of the
petitioner from the case land he is under legal obligation
to initiate proceeding under law and pass appropriate
order giving opportunity of hearing to the person(s) in
possession over the case land. However, there is no
material on record to show that the Tahasildar,
Kandhamal had, in fact, initiated any eviction
proceeding against the petitioner. Thus, the allegation of
the petitioner is baseless and the writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court, without
expressing any opinion on the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, disposes of the writ
petition with an observation that if the petitioner is in
possession over the case land he shall not be evicted
without following due procedure of law.
5.1 Authenticated copy of this order downloaded
from the website of this Court shall be treated at par
with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this
Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
................................
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
ss 3