Harihar Baral vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3781 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   W.P.(C) No. 9733 OF 2023
                 Harihar Baral                             ....       Petitioner
                                                 Mr. Niranjan Panda, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 State of Odisha and others                .... Opp. Parties
                                                    Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dash,
                                              Additional Government Advocate

                                       Mr. Binayak Prasad Mohanty, Advocate
                                                            (For Intervenor)

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              19.04.2023
   2.       1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Perused the endorsement made by learned Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 18th April, 2023 assigning the matter to this Bench.

3. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to set aside the notice dated 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-6) directing him to vacate the property by 3rd April, 2023, failing which he would be evicted in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Endowments Act').

4. It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the marfatdars of Sri Mahamaya Thakurani, Bije Mahamaya Sahi, Jaypur, Puri had sold the property in favour of the Petitioner and the said property has been recorded in his name. The Petitioner being in possession over the suit property is paying the land revenue since 1995. The notice under

// 2 //

Annexure-6 came as a bolt from blue, for which finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. It is his submission that the Tahasildar, Satyabadi had no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. The Petitioner was not given any opportunity to have its say in the matter. Since the property has already been recorded in his name, the notice without giving him an opportunity of hearing is bad in law and is liable to set aside.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has filed I.A. No.4753 of 2023 seeking intervention of one Sri Shyamsundar Sahu in the matter. It is his submission that the intervenor being the trustee had filed O.A. No.38 of 2016 under Section 25 of the Endowments Act for eviction of the Petitioner. The said application was allowed vide order dated 12th April, 2018 directing as under:

"Thus, considering the unchallenged testimony of the petitioner and the document placed on record I may say that possession of schedule land by O.P. is against the spirit of law, and therefore he needs eviction.

Accordingly, the petition filed U/S.25 of the O.H.R.E. Act is allowed. Issue requisition to the Collector, Puri for eviction of O.P. from the case land and to give delivery possession of the same to the case deity through its Authoized Agent."

7. As no action was taken by the Collector to evict the Petitioner, the intervenor filed W.P.(C) No.8185 of 2019, which was disposed of on 1st November, 2022 with the following direction:

"On query from Court parties have not been able to show any appeal was preferred from the judgment. In the circumstances, opposite party no.2 is directed to initiate or if already initiated, proceed with the evicting judgment debtor. The requisition made by the judgment is to be complied with within three months from

// 3 //

communication of this order to said opposite party."

Pursuant to the said direction, notice under Annexure-6 has been issued. The Petitioner suppressing the material fact, has filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner in reply to the submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the intervenor submits that, even if, the direction was made for eviction of the Petitioner in the proceeding under Section 25 of the Endowments Act, but the Tahasildar, Satyabadi has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Annexure-6. Thus, it is liable to be set aside.

9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the intervenors are allowed participate in the hearing of the matter.

10. It appears that in a proceeding under Section 25 of the Endowments Act in O.A. No.38 of 2016, the Petitioner was directed to be evicted from the suit land. This Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.8185 of 2019 vide order dated 1st November, 2022 directed that requisition made pursuant to the judgment passed by the Commissioner of Endowment shall be complied with within three months from communication of the order.

10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned notice under Annexure-6 directing the Petitioner to vacate the land by 3rd April, 2023 and on failure to evict him in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Endowments Act, as the said notice has been issued in compliance of the direction of this Court. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the intervenor

// 4 //

further submits that the Petitioner has already been evicted from the suit property on 5th April, 2023. However, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner strongly refutes the same and contends that the Petitioner is still in possession over the suit property.

11. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge