Anjan Kumar Hota vs Sucheta Mohapatra
2021 Latest Caselaw 8122 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CONTC No.1534 of 2021


            Anjan Kumar Hota                      ....           Petitioner

                                              Mr. B. Bhuyan, Advocate

                                      -versus-

            Sucheta Mohapatra                     ....    Opposite Party


                                                 Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA




                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO


                                     ORDER

03.08.2021

CONTC No.1534 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.26578 of 2013 Order No.

03. 1. Both the matters are taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

// 2 //

3. In these cases, the petitioner prays that direction may be given to the Tahasildar, Kishannagar i.e. opposite party no.3 for disposal of the representation vide Annexure-6 for the ends of justice. In the meantime, contempt petition has already been filed for alleged violation of order dated 02.01.2014 in Misc. Case No.23773 of 2013. The interim order was passed about seven years back, and though, the petitioner claims in the complain petition that initially there is a violation of order passed by the opposite party on 11.02.2014, he did not file any contempt petition, but waited till 12.02.2021, when the opposite parties allegedly forcibly entered into the disputed land and interfered with the agricultural operation by the petitioner over the land in question. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioner was issued a notice by the Tahasildar, Kishannagar on 18.02.2021 not to cut any tree and remove the same from the aforesaid plot.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahasildar, Kishannagar should be punished for contempt. However, we are of the opinion that, as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asset Reconstructions Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr., in Civil Appeal No.323 of 2021 on 15th April, 2021, interim order passed by this Court does not continue unless expressly so ordered beyond six months of its passing. In this case, there is no extension of the interim order. So the order dated 02.01.20214 has come to its logical conclusion.

// 3 //

Moreover, Annexure-2 and 3 issued by the Tahasildar, Kishannagar does not interfere with the agricultural operation of the petitioner. So, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt against the Government Officer and contempt petition is dropped.

5. As far as the merit of the writ petition is concerned, the interest of justice shall be subserved if the opposite party no.3 i.e. Tahasildar, Kishannagar without being influenced or prejudiced by any action of the petitioner, considers Annexure- 6, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of thirty days for production of certified copy of this order along with copy of the brief and takes a decision by considering the provisions of Section 8 (A) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and Section 13 of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act.

6. Accordingly, both the contempt petition and writ petition are disposed of.

7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge T.TUDU // 4 //