Orissa High Court
Harsh Kumar Primus Lakra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 12 April, 2024
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38961 of 2023
Harsh Kumar Primus Lakra .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
12.04.2024 Order No.
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for adequate and suitable compensation for having been deprived of the schedule land with a demolition of structures standing over the same without any authority and notice during the pendency of proceeding seeking its settlement in terms of Section 8-A of the OPLE Act.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there has been a wrongful demolition of the house and other structures standing over the schedule land in occupation of the petitioner, hence, therefore, compensation is prayed for. It is claimed that notwithstanding long possession of the land in question by the petitioner and a decision on settlement thereof as per the provisions of the OPLE Act, the alleged demolition was carried out, which is out rightly illegal and hence, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
Page 1 of 34. Referring to the counter affidavit, Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State submits that Revenue Revision Case No. 2 of 2020 is still pending orders, hence, therefore, the question of compensation can only be considered thereafter. In reply and response of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such revision at the instance of the local Tahasildar is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner obtained a decree of the civil court, though the State is not a party therein. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit, Mr. Mishra further submits that the petitioner has all along been in possession of the case land, which is disputed by the State and refers to Annexures-15 and 16 in support of such claim.
5. Admittedly, a revision is filed by opposite party No.5 and the same is pending disposal before opposite party No.3. In fact, this Court by order under Annexure-13 while disposing of W.P.(C) No.26260 of 2023 directed disposal of the said revision within six weeks from then. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the Revision Case No.2 of 2020 is still pending without a final order. The submission is that the revision is not at all maintainable as according to Mr. Mishra but then, opposite party No.3 has passed an order dated 15th September, 2023 as at Annexure-14 with a final decision that opposite party No.5 is competent to file the same. The said order under Annexure- 14 has not been challenged by the petitioner. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, the same relates to compensation on account of illegal demolition by the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party No.5. In such view of the matter, when Revision Case No.2 of 2020 is still pending, the Court is of the view that the same needs immediate disposal with a fresh direction to opposite party No.3 followed by order dated 21st August, 2023 in W.P.(C) No.26260 of 2023 since payment of compensation in Page 2 of 3 favour of the petitioner depends on the result therein. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that on the petitioner's plea for compensation on account of the alleged demolition which has been held in respect of the standing structures over the schedule land as against which settlement under Section 8-A of the OPLE Act was pleaded for with a decree of the civil court in place, a decision in Revision Case No.2 of 2020 is necessary and therefore, a direction is required to be issued in that regard.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to take up hearing of the proceeding in Revision Case No.2 of 2020 and to ensure its disposal as soon as possible in furtherance of the order under Annexure-13 and to pass a final order at the earliest preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that subject to the outcome and result in revision, the plea for compensation by the petitioner shall be examined by opposite party No.3 and a decision thereon to be taken within four weeks since its disposal.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
9. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State for its onward intimation to opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 for early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:38:46 Page 3 of 3