Orissa High Court
Basanti Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 2 September, 2021
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21941 OF 2021
Basanti Behera .... Petitioner
Mr.Santanu Kumar Sarangi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.N.Mishra,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.09.2021 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 17th March, 2021 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director of Estate-Opposite Party No.2 in Appeal Case No.07/2019(L).
3. It is submitted by Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel that the Petitioner is in occupation of government land, i.e., Plot No.147 under Khata No.421(GA) to an extent of area Ac.0.046 decimal in mouza Satya Nagar, Unit-10, Bhubaneswar, for which a proceeding under the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') was initiated in OPP Case No.79/09(L) and eviction order was passed on 22nd January, 2019. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed Appeal Case No.07/2019(L) under Section 9 of the Act. Although the Petitioner was regularly participating in the proceeding of the Appeal Case, but most unfortunately on the date of hearing, i.e., 17th March, 2021 she could not appear before the appellate authority, for which final order was passed Page 1 of 3 // 2 // on that date under Annexure-7 confirming the order passed by the Estate Officer. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the Director of Estate- Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner giving her opportunity of hearing.
3.1 It is the submission of Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel that although a Civil Suit is pending in respect of the land in question, but the Petitioner may not get any relief in the said suit because of the bar under Section 14 of the Act. As such, pendency of the Civil Suit should not be a bar to entertain this writ petition.
4. Mr.Mishra, learned AGA vehemently opposes the above submission and contended that the Petitioner is occupying the government land unauthorisedly in the prime locality of Bhubaneswar. Due to her unauthorized occupation, the General Administration and Public Grievance Department is not in a position to take up developmental work in the said area. At times, law and order problem also arises due to such unauthorized occupation of government land by the Petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that since the impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed in absence of the Petitioner the Director of Estate-Opposite Party No.2 should give the Petitioner an opportunity to have her say.
6. Accordingly, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event the Petitioner appears before the Director of Estate-Opposite Party No.2 on 9th Page 2 of 3 // 3 // September, 2021 along with certified copy of this order, she shall be given an opportunity to have her say in the matter. Till a fresh decision is taken, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to keep the order dated 17th March, 2021 (Annexure-7) passed in Appeal Case No. 07/2019(L) in abeyance, which shall be subject to the order to be passed by the Director of Estate, as aforesaid.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy Page 3 of 3