Chhabindra Samantaray vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15388 Ori

Orissa High Court

Chhabindra Samantaray vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 1 December, 2023

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C).No. 39201 of 2023

            Chhabindra Samantaray                      ....               Petitioner
                                                       Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate


                                           -Versus-

            State of Odisha & others                    ....       Opposite Parties
                                                                Mr. J.P.Patra, ASC


                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                          ORDER

01.12.2023 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 4 and Mr. Panda-1, learned counsel for BMC-opposite party No.3.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No. 2 not to evict the petitioner from Pindi No. OG-330, Unit-4, Market Building, Bhubaneswar and to take a decision on Annexure-2 within a stipulated period as would be fixed by the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in occupation of the shop site by virtue of Anneuxre-8 series but recently on 28th November, 2023, he has been directed to vacate the same or else to be forcibly evicted therefrom. It is claimed that the petitioner has applied for regularization of the allotment of shop site with a representation i.e. Annexure-2 with no decision taken on the same till date,

hence, a direction is required to be issued towards it for consideration in the light of the judgment dated 24th November, 2014 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25672 of 2013 in the case of Laxmipriya Sahoo Vrs. Director of Estate & others and batch matters and while contending so, a copy of the said decision is produced in Court today.

4. Mr. Panda-1, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 submits that if the Court is inclined, appropriate order may perhaps be passed for examination and disposal of Annexure-2 which has been pleaded for.

5. In course of hearing, referring to the judgment (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner falls in the category 'F' and allotment in respect of the shop site should be considered by BMC, in accordance therewith. In response to the above, Mr. Panda-1 learned counsel for opposite party No.3 submits that the petitioner's case as it appears is not coming within the purview of any of the categories as mentioned in the decision referred to and relied upon. Without expressing anything on merits of the rival claims, the Court is of the view that since there has been an allotment vide Annexure-1 and as it is claimed that such possession is still continued, the representation i.e. Annexure-2 which is said to have been submitted in the meantime should be examined by opposite party No.3 in the light of the directions issued in Laxmipriya Sahoo (supra) which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to examine Annexure-2 i.e. representation of the petitioner and to take a final decision on the same providing an opportunity of hearing to him at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, a final decision is rendered, status quo shall be maintained in respect of the subject matter in dispute.

8. A copy of the order be handed to Mr. Panda-1 learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 for its onward intimation to the authority concerned.

9. A certified copy of the order be issued as per rules. kabita

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge