Prasant Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10533 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No. 28034 of 2023

Prasant Kumar Das                    .....                                 Petitioner
                                                            Mr. A.K. Tarai, Advocate
                                     Vs.
State of Odisha and others           .....                           Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
              CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                 MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                             ORDER

31.08.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Tarai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 06.05.2000 passed by the ASO, Bhubaneswar and the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack in Appeal Case No. 2015 of 2006; and to remand the matter to the authorities to consider the same in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha and others, (W.P.(C) No. 1608 of 2014 disposed of on 02.01.2023) and batch of cases.

4. Mr. A.K. Tarai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has already laid down the law in the case of Narottam Rath (supra) and, as such, since the case of the petitioner is covered by the said ration, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate

raised serious objection to the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of Narottam Rath (supra), as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar had passed the order on 06.05.2000 to record the land in question in favour of the Government in G.A. Department basing upon the inquiry report that the land belongs to homestead, but the tenant was absent. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Appeal Case No. 2015 of 2006 before the Settlement Officer, Cuttack Major Settlement. After verifying the enquiry report submitted by the ASO, Bhuabenswar, the Settlement Officer passed an order on 11.10.2007 disallowing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that in case where the Collector decides not to set aside any such settlement, lease or transfer, he shall refer the case to the Board of Revenue for confirmation of settlement, lease or transfer and the order passed by the Board of Revenue in this behalf is final. Challenging the order dated 11.10.2007 passed in Appeal Case No. 2015 of 2006, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 38185 of 2021 with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.05.2000 passed by the ASO, Bhubaneswar and the order dated 11.10.2007 passed in Appeal Case No.2015/2006 by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack. This Court disposed of the said writ application vide order dated 03.01.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and, accordingly, the petitioner filed OSS Case No.215/2022 on 13.01.2022 before the Board of Revenue, Bhubaneswar, which is pending and during pendency of the said case, the judgment was passed in the case of Narottam Rath (supra).

7. When OSS Case No. 215 of 2022 is pending before the Board of Revenue, this Court is not inclined to dispose of the matter in terms of Narottam Rath (supra). However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Board of Revenue ventilating his grievance, in accordance with law, even if to the extent that he may also refer the decision of Narottam Rath (supra) before the said forum, but this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(M.S. RAMAN) Arun JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 31-Aug-2023 17:33:13