Nita Dubey And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2949 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    W.A. No.1261 of 2022

             Nita Dubey and another                    ....        Appellants
                                                Mr. V. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                        -versus-
             State of Odisha and others               ....      Respondents
                                                        Mr. A. P. Das, ASC

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                           ORDER

06.04.2023 Order No.

01. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 24th August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellants' writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.39008 of 2021 in which writ petition, the Appellants had sought a direction to quash a notice dated 5th November, 2021 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Puri to OIC, Balanga Police Station requesting him to stop unauthorized construction over the land belonging to Shree Jagannath Temple Administration and that one Akrura Senapati was raising unauthorized construction of Chicken Farm over an area of Ac.0.22 decimals under Hal Khata No.8 of the said mouza.

2. Appellant No.1 claimed to be a bhag tenant under the erstwhile Endowment Board paying rent to the landlord and enclosed certain rent receipts. Akrura Senapati-Appellant No.2 is stated to be working under Appellant No.1 and looking after the Chicken Farm constructed over the suit land.

3. Contending that the land stands recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee and, therefore, the police authorities have no locus standi to issue the impugned notice, the Appellants sought the quashing of the said notice and to permit Akrura Senapati "to make construction of Chicken Farm over the case land."

4. The above writ petition was the second round of litigation. In the first round, W.P.(C) No.16273 of 2021 was filed resisting possession from the disputed land without following the procedure established by law. That writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 11th August, 2021 noting that after the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Sidha Matha, 2016 (I) OLR (SC) 209, the case land already stood recorded in the name of the Temple Administration. However, the learned Single Judge found that in the absence of any notice to the Appellants for their eviction from the case land or any material to show that they were being threatened with eviction, the apprehension expressed by the Appellants was baseless. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

5. As far as the impugned order dated 24th August 2022 is concerned, here too the learned Single Judge notes that the Appellants' claim that they were in possession of the suit land was seriously disputed by the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. There was no material to show that there was in fact a Chicken Farm over the suit land which had been constructed by Appellant No.1. Also no permission appeared to have been taken from the

Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee for raising any construction. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants and having examined carefully the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in light of the other documents on record, the Court is not persuaded that the learned Single Judge has committed any error, which warrants interference. The burden was on the Appellants who had filed the writ petition to substantiate their contention that they were in lawful possession of the land in question. This itself appears to have been a disputed question of fact, which could not have possibly been examined in the writ petition. The action taken against the Appellants was obviously under Section 16A(i) of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act read with the provisions of OPLE Act and, therefore, the Appellants cannot be heard to say that notwithstanding there lacking any authorization whatsoever, they should not be evicted from the suit land.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180 to urge that the principles of natural justice have to be adhered to for evicting the Appellants.

8. The Appellants received show cause notices which they assailed before the learned Single Judge. There they were fully heard on merits. Consequently, the Court finds no applicability of the ratio in the above decision of the Supreme Court.

9. Accordingly, the Court finds no grounds made out for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge M. Panda