Orissa High Court
Snigdha Mohanty vs State Of Odisha& Others .... Opposite ... on 6 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18076of 2023
Snigdha Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. Bikash Jena, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha& Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.07.2023 Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2019 under Annexure-6 in UAP Case No. 388 of 2018 and also order dated 13th October, 2022 passed in U.C. Appeal No. 02/2020 under Annexure-7 on the grounds stated therein along with a direction to opposite party No.4 to decide UAP Case No. 388 of 2018 afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule land was purchased by the mother of the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 7th January, 1981, however, during the settlement operation, by order dated 8thJuly, 2013 in Rent Case No. 6002/5231 of 2013, it was directed to be recorded in favour of G.A. Department, Government of Odisha which was challenged in W.P.(C) Page 1 of 3 No. 4481 of 2023 disposed of on 3rd March, 2023 vide Annexure-4 with a direction to the Assistant Settlement Officer to consider the claim of the petitioner in regard to which Misc.Case No. 199 of 2023 was filed. Itis further submitted that the said proceeding connected to Rent Case No. 6002/5231 of 2013 is still pending consideration but in the meantime, action was taken for unauthorized construction and the final order inUAP Case No. 388 of 2018 was challenged in U.C. Appeal No. 02/2020 resulting in passing of the impugned order under Annexure-7 which is not tenable in law in view of the fact that the title in question and decision in respect thereof is awaited.
4. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party No.1 &2 submits that irrespective of the dispute over title, the petitioner since raised unauthorized construction and rightly, therefore, UAP Case No. 388 of 2018 was initiated and the order passed therein under Annexure-6 which was correctly confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-7.
5. However, having regard to the fact that pursuant to the order of this Court under Annexure-4 since the matter is subjudice before the authority concerned in Rent Case No. 6002/5231 of 2013 wherein Misc. Case No. 199 of 2023 is filed, before any order is passed by the Court, it is of the view that the response of BMC is necessary so also of the State.
6. Notice to the opposite parties.
7. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State accepts notice for opposite party Nos. 1 &2.
Page 2 of 3kabita
8. Notice to opposite party Nos.3 to 5 by registered post with A.D. making it returnable at an early date and for the said purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner shall file the requisites within a week from today.
9. List on 27th July 2023 awaiting response of the State and also opposite party Nos. 3 to 5.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge I.A No.8338 of 2023
02. 1. Considering the grievance of the petitioner and having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court,as an interim measure, directs that status quo shall be maintained in respect of the schedule property and order dated 13th October, 2022 vide Anenxure-7 shall not be given effect to till the next date.
2. List on the date fixed.
3. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 07-Jul-2023 18:05:43 Page 3 of 3 kabita