Orissa High Court
Satyanarayan Rath And Others vs The State Of Odisha And Others .... ... on 3 July, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25239 of 2017
Satyanarayan Rath and Others .... Petitioners
Mr. N.C. Pati, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
The State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. YSP Babu, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
03.07.2023 Order No.
04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Babu, learned AGA for State opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is at the behest of the petitioners challenging the impugned orders under Annexures-3 series, 4 and 5 with a consequential direction which is with regard to a proceeding in Revenue Misc. Case No.33 of 1999 vis-à-vis de-reservation of land belonging to Ghantapali revenue village where they claim to have been rehabilitated since long on the grounds inter alia that the same is not in obedience and confirmity to the order of this Court in OJC No.13968 of 1999 dated 20th December, 1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were originally the inhabitants of village-Tareikela in Sonepur district and belong to lower economic strata of the society but thereafter, they were rehabilitated by the local authorities with the assistance of agencies at the present location. It is further submitted that the petitioners thereafter mad representations to de-
Page 1 of 5reserve the land in question under their occupation and ultimately, the matter landed up before this Court in OJC No.13968 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 20th December, 1999 under Annexure-2 with a direction to the authority concerned to dispose of Revenue Misc. Case No.33 of 1999 in accordance with the law within a stipulated period and till such time, the encroachment proceedings shall remain stayed. It is contended that the said direction of this Court vide Annexure-2 has not been duly complied with considering the fact that the impugned action has been taken thereafter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in fact, the proceeding of de-reservation in Revenue Misc. Case No.33 of 1999 was disposed of without providing the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing and in compliance of the order of the Collector, Sonepur-opposite party No.3 in accordance with the observation made in Annexure-4. It is claimed that since defects were pointed out by opposite party No.3 while dealing with the matter vis-à-vis de-reservation proposed, hence, it was rejected, however, with an observation that opposite party No.5 shall not be debarred to re-submit the de-reservation proposals along with the encroachment case record individually, if he finds after proper enquiry that the petitioners are eligible for settlement as per the provisions of the OPLE Act. It is lastly contended that though the proposal for de-reservation was disallowed vide Annexure-4 but opposite party No.5 was not prevented from re-submitting the same. It is contended that the proposal should have been re- submitted in view of the order of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-4. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 15th March, 2000 of opposite party No.5 vide Annexure-5 is unjustified and the impugned action is liable to be interfered with.
Page 2 of 54. Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State opposite parties on the other hand submits that such proposal for de-reservation was rejected by opposite party No.3 which is evident from Annexure-4 which was followed by the impugned order under Annexure-5 and therefore, there is no legality committed as a result.
5. Gone through the order under Annexure-4 which reveals that proposal for de-reservation as per the provisions of the OGLS Act was rejected. In other words, opposite party No.3, in exercise of power conferred under Section 3-A of the OGLS Act, was pleased to reject the proposal of de-reservation in connection with Revenue Misc. Case No.33 of 1999. At the same time, it is also made to appear that opposite party No.5 was held not to be debarred to re- submit de-reservation proposals along with the encroachment record for a decision as per the provisions of the OPLE Act. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain defects were pointed out by opposite party No.3 which was not duly taken cognizance by opposite party No.5 while suggesting de- reservation and at the same time, fresh proposal was never submitted by the latter for a decision as per the provisions of the OPLE Act despite the liberty granted which ought to have been considering the grievance of the petitioners.
6. As it appears from Annexure-5, opposite party No.5 passed the impugned order under Annexure-5 in view of the order of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-4 as to rejection of proposal with regard to de-reservation as per the provisions of the OGLS Act. Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State opposite parties submits that he has no instructions as to if any such fresh proposal for de- reservation has been submitted or considered by opposite party No.5 in the meanwhile in view of the order of opposite party No.3 Page 3 of 5 under Annexure-4. Rather, the Court finds that by a cryptic order, opposite party No.5 disposed of the matter by holding that the direction of this Court in OJC No.13968 of 1999 has been complied with. In other words, the direction for removal of encroachment was issued by opposite party No.5 vide Annexure-5 since the proposal for de-reservation was rejected under the provisions of the OGLS Act and Rules.
7. Since an observation was made by opposite party No.3 in the order under Annexure-4, this Court is of the humble view that opposite party No.5 ought to have examined the grievances of the petitioners in the light of such observation instead of closing the matter apparently holding them to be ineligible for being considered under the OPLE Act. Of course, opposite party No.3 was pleased to reject the proposal received as per the provisions of the OGLS Act, nevertheless, liberty was granted to consider re-submission of proposals for de-reservation. It is not known, whether, any such fresh proposal was really submitted by opposite party No.5 in terms of the provisions of the OPLE Act. The Court is also the view that if no such proposal as re-submitted, opposite party No.5 should consider and examine it in the light of the observation made in Annexure-4 for a decision according to the provisions of OPLE Act which would serve the purpose and necessary to advance the cause of justice.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.5 to re-consider and if found necessary to re-submit de-reservation proposals vis-a-vis the petitioners in respect of the schedule land in consonance with the Page 4 of 5 observation of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-4 and to take a decision thereon as soon as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, not to take any coercive action against them. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is hereby quashed.
10. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Page 5 of 5 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 04-Jul-2023 11:26:27