Orissa High Court
Nita Dubey vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16273 of 2021
Nita Dubey .... Petitioner
Mr.Ashok Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party Nos.1, 2,5 and 6)
Mr. Subrat Satapathy, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
11.08.2021
7. 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed to restrain the
Opposite Parties from taking forcible possession of the
disputed land without following due procedure of law.
3. It is submitted by Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in possession over Plot
No.1106 to an extent of area Ac.1.35 decimal out of Ac.5.30
decimal and Plot No.1101 to an extent of area Ac.0.15 decimal
out of Ac.1.26 decimal under Khata No.8 in mouza Nua
Budhakera under Nimapara tahasil in the district of Puri (for
short, 'the case land'). The case land has been recorded in the
name of Dakhisina Parshwa Math after pronouncement of
judgment in Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee Vs.
Sidha Math, reported in 2016 (I) OLR (SC) 209 and the case land
has already been recorded in the name of Temple Administration,
// 2 //
Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri. Referring to paragraph-12 of the writ
petition, it is submitted that an employee of Sri Jagannath Temple
Administration along with Inspector in-charge of Balanga Police
Station came to the case land and directed the Petitioner to stop
construction and vacate the same. It is submitted that no notice as
required under law has been issued by the Temple Administration
for eviction of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner finding no other
alternative, has filed the present writ petition.
4. Mr.Satapathy, learned counsel for Sri Jagannath Temple
Administration, on instruction, submits that the writ petition has
been filed on vague and misleading allegations. The allegations
made in paragraph-12, does not disclose the date and identity of the
person who have gone to the spot along with the IIC, Balanga PS.
There is no material available on record to show that the Petitioner
has been threatened for eviction from the case land. In view of the
above, the writ petition being misconceived is liable to be
dismissed.
5. Mr.Mishra, learned ASC submits that the averments made
in paragraph-12 of the writ petition is completely false and baseless
and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being based
on incorrect statement.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that no notice as required
under law, is issued to the Petitioner for his eviction from the case
land. There is also no material on record to show that the Petitioner
was threatened of eviction. As such, the apprehension of the
Petitioner is baseless.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
