Sri Radhamohan Mahapravu And vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10000 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.28734 of 2020
                               (Through Hybrid mode)

            Sri Radhamohan Mahapravu and             ....               Petitioners
            Sri Radha Damodar Mahapravu
            and others

                                                Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, Advocate

                                          -versus-
            State of Odisha and others               ....         Opposite Parties

                                           Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA
                                           Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate

                                           Mr. P. K. Mohapatra, Advocate


            CORAM:
                          JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                          JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                          ORDER

24.08.2023

Order No. W.P.(C) No.28734 of 2020 and I.A. no.12556 of 2020

07.

1. Mr. Mantry, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners.

On query from Court he submits, his clients are bhag tenants under

the deities and hence, they have filed the writ petition. Impugned is

judgment dated 27th December, 2017, whereby the Commissioner

// 2 //

illegally granted permission to sell part of the deities' lands, over

which his clients are bhag tenants. Purported auction was held after

restrictions consequent to COVID-19 pandemic had been enforced by

the Government.

2. He submits further, 6 out of 28 plots already stood acquired in

land acquisition proceedings and compensation duly received by the

deities. This fact was not brought to notice of the Commissioner, and

hence, the office made to pass the judgment on illegality and material

irregularity. On query from Court he submits, statements have been

made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition.

3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State. Ms. Mohapatra, learned

advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3, the hereditary

trustee. She submits, the procedure followed for grant of permission,

holding auction and execution of sale deeds was in accordance with

law. There was challenge in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by

WP(C) no.26466 of 2020, disposed of on order dated 3rd April, 2023.

Mr. Mantry submits, that was on the question of valuation.

// 3 //

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

opposite party no.4, auction purchaser.

5. Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur is added as

opposite party no.5. Petitioners will cause amendment in the cause

title, counter signed by Court Master. Thereupon, petitioners will

circulate cause title to appearing learned advocates.

6. As State is already party and concerned functionary has been

added, instructions are to be issued regarding statements made in the

petition, particularly in paragraph 11 therein. With regard thereto

affidavit is to be filed on adjourned date upon advance copy served.

7. List on 25th September, 2023. Return record of WP(C)

no.26466 of 2020 to the department. Interim order to continue till

next date of hearing.

                                                                   ( Arindam Sinha )
                                                                         Judge


Signature Not Verified                                              ( S. K. Mishra )
Digitally Signed                                                        Judge
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 24-Aug-2023 17:08:25

   Prasant