Orissa High Court
Kamalakanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 September, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30537 of 2023
Kamalakanta Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
22.09.2023 Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 and 3.
2. No notices are issued to opposite party Nos.2 and 4 since the matter is disposed at the stage of admission.
3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashment of the impugned notice dated 17th August, 2023 issued by the opposite party No.4 which is with regard to the demolition of the shop allotted to him without proper rehabilitation and re-settlement with a consequential direction to opposing party No.3 to find out a suitable site for the purpose of his relocation under the Urban Poverty Allegation Programme read with Section 374 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in question was allotted in his favour. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in possession the shop room till date but now stands intervened by the impugned notice under Annexure-3 which is with a direction him to vacate by 15th September, 2023 under Annexure- 4 followed by another notice dated 16th September, 2023 expiring the period today and while claiming so, a copy of the said notice is Page 1 of 3 produced in Court. It is submitted that the authorities below and particular, opposite party No.2 before taking of any such action with the issuance of notice under Annexure-3 should consider rehabilitation and re-settlement of the petitioner as per the provision of the Orissa Municipal Act which has not been complied with.
5. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 and 3 submits that in absence of any agreement, rehabilitation and re-settlement of the petitioner cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
6. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a copy of the grievance petition i.e. Annexure-4 which has been submitted to opposite party No.4 to consider his rehabilitation as per the Orissa Municipal Act and in consonance with poverty alleviation scheme. It is made to understand from the record that the land over which the shop of the petitioner stands is required for construction of a bus stand and hence, for the said purpose, impugned notice under Annexure-3 has been issued. The said period expired on 15th September, 2023 and as it is appears from the notice dated 16th September, 2023, it has been extended up to 22nd September, 2023 i.e. today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.3 should consider Annexure-4 for rehabilitation and re-settlement of the petitioner. It is also submitted that at least three weeks' time should be allowed for the petitioner vacate the land in question.
7. Considering the above facts and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and objection of Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 and 3, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be allowed three weeks; time to vacate the schedule land over which the shop is situated and at the same time, a direction is required to be issued to opposite party No.3 to consider Annexure-4 which is with regard to Page 2 of 3 rehabilitation. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioner should be examined in view the contention advanced and simultaneously a reasonable time should be allowed to vacate the land and for the said purpose, as it has been undertaken, three weeks' time would be sufficient.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider Anenxure-4 to take decision thereon after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is also directed to vacate the schedule land within three weeks' from today. It is further directed that in the event petitioner does not vacate the land in question within the above stipulated period, the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party No.4 shall be at liberty to ensure his eviction as per law.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 25-Sep-2023 13:15:33 Page 3 of 3