Orissa High Court
Prakash Chandra Panda vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opp. Parties on 16 December, 2020
Author: S.Pujahari
Bench: S.Pujahari
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
WPC No.33317 of 2020
Prakash Chandra Panda ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & others ... Opp. Parties
ORDER
04. 16.12.2020 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the opposite party no.3 not to demolish the structure of the crusher unit of the petitioner situated in Hal Plot Nos.6468, 6475, 6474, 6507 and 2734, Hal Khata Nos.1730 & 1728, 186 measuring an area of Ac.0.106 dec. Ac.0.023 dec. and Ac.0.047 dec., total Ac.0.176 dec. Ac.1.000 dec. of Mouza-Anjira in the district of Jajpur.
The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has a crusher unit over his stitiban land but the said land has been wrongly recorded in the name of the Government. Against such wrong recording, the petitioner has ventilated his grievance for correction of the record-of-right before the 2 appropriate forum. However, the petitioner has established a stone crusher unit there which is presently not functioning. But taking advantage of the wrong recording, the OPLE proceeding has been initiated by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, which is still pending. Directions have been passed by this Court in WPC No.2917 of 2020 to consider the case of the petitioner in the pending OPLE proceeding by the Tahasildar and as such, no eviction order of the petitioner has been passed in the land in question. While the matter stood thus, in pursuance of the direction stated to have been given in the PIL, the crusher unit of the petitioner is going to be demolished and he is going to be evicted from the land in question behind his back by the opposite party no.3. The same being without any jurisdiction particularly when OPLE proceeding is pending with the Tahasildar and as such, he has come to this Court challenging such action of the Collector, Jajpur-opposite party no.2.
During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Collector without giving any notice and behind his back passed 3 an order of demolition and he is going to be evicted from the land in question, notwithstanding the direction of this Court in WPC No.2917 of 2020 in the pending OPLE proceeding before the Tahasildar and also his case is pending challenging wrong recording the land in the name of the Government, the same is liable to be quashed and the Collector, Jajpur-opposite party no.2 be restrained not to demolish the crusher unit and also evict the petitioner from the land in question pending disposal of the aforesaid litigations.
Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that as many crusher units were running illegally in the locality including that of the petitioner, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the PIL, the Collector, Jajpur is taking steps to close such crusher units and illegal quarrying of the stones. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner's unit has since been sealed and no eviction of the petitioner is going to be made by the Collector from the land, which is subject-matter in the OPLE proceeding.
However, in the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4 crusher unit of the petitioner is closed since long and he is going to operate the same and as such the prayer made as aforesaid be allowed.
On consideration of the aforesaid facts and the submissions made, this Court disposes of the writ petition giving liberty to the Collector to take such steps to prevent the illegal running of the stone crusher by sealing the unit as stated to have been made by the petitioner but without causing any demolition or damage to the crusher unit. However, if the petitioner furnishes proof before the Collector, Jajpur that he is legally entitled to run the same as he has clearance or obtained the clearance from the authority concerned in the meanwhile, the Collector shall consider his case in accordance with law and allow the petitioner to run the crusher unit notwithstanding the fact that the same is running on the land presently recorded in the name of the Government, notwithstanding pendency of the OPLE proceeding. Needless to say that the aforesaid order shall not prevent the authority to pass a reasoned order in the OPLE proceeding after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law 5 and also direction given in the earlier WPC No.2917 of 2020 filed by the petitioner.
The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
..........................
PKS S.Pujahari, J.