Bimbadhar Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10534 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.P.(C) No.27730 of 2023

          Bimbadhar Jena                             ....             Petitioner
                                                     Mr. K.K. Rout, Advocate


                                         -Versus-


          State of Odisha and Others                 ....          Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. J. P. Patra, AGA


                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                                        ORDER

31.08.2023 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

2. No notices are issued to opposite party Nos.3 to 5 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties not to evict him from the schedule land situate over Plot Nos.150 and 151, Khata No.424 in the Mouza in question of Tahasil-Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda on the grounds stated therein.

4. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already approached the civil court in C.S. No.300 of 2008 since the schedule land stood record in the Sabik settlement but subsequently with the Govt. as per Annexure-2 and therein, the State has been temporarily restrained by an order dated 30th July, 2008 in IA No.225 of 2008 which was later confirmed in FAO

No.31/68 of 2013/2008 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar. It is further submitted that despite the interim order confirmed in FAO No.31/68 of 2013/2008, recently, opposite party Nos.3 to 5, since are not parties to the suit, have contemplated to take action against the petitioner which is again without following due process of law.

5. Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 2 submits that since the action is at the behest of opposite party No.3 to 5, if the Court is inclined, appropriate order may perhaps be passed.

6. Gone through the RoRs as at Annexure-1 series and 2 in juxtaposition to the claim of the petitioner that the schedule land stood recorded with them in Sabik settlement. It is also revealed from a copy of the plaint i.e. Annexure-3 that the suit is pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, wherein, the State is a party. It is claimed that opposite party No.3 to 5 have declared eviction and demolition of the standing structure from the schedule land despite an interim order in IA No.225 of 2008 i.e. Annexure-4 passed in C.S. No.300 of 2008. A copy of the judgment in FAO No.31/68 of 2013/2008 i.e. Annexure-5 and the same is perused. It is revealed that there is an interim order as against the schedule land in favour of the petitioner and others in the suit. Having regard to the above facts, the Court is of the view that any such action which is presently contemplated by opposite party Nos.3 to 5 should be by established procedure in law keeping in view the order passed in IA No.225 of 2008 corresponding to CS No.300 of 2008.

7. Hence, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.3 to 5 to take any such action in accordance with law having regard to the pendency of suit before the civil court.

9. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules and in course of the day.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 01-Sep-2023 17:52:22