Muralidhar Mallik @ Murali Malik vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1034 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 22513 of 2021
                                (Through hybrid mode)


            Muralidhar Mallik @ Murali Malik ....                     Petitioner

                                           Mr. Arjuna Ch. Behera, Advocate

                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha and others               ....      Opposite Parties
                                                       Mr. A.K. Nanda, AGA



                     CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                 JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                        ORDER

31.01.2023

WP(C) no.22513 of 2021 and I.A. no.10337 of 2021 Order No.

4. 1. Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client wants settlement of the land, in which he resides. For the purpose, undated judgment in misc. case no.27 of 2020 of the Collector needs to be set aside and quashed. He refers to annexure-5 series to submit, his client does have a share along with his relatives in homestead land, where the relatives are residing. He reiterates, his client has been residing in the land his client wants allotment, for last three decades.

2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on clause (dd) under

// 2 //

rule 2 in Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983. He submits, one of the requirements is that claimant for allotment must be a homesteadless person, not having any homestead land here in the State.

3. We reproduce two paragraphs from the judgment.

"The gist of the case is that learned advocate for the petitioner has contended to provide a piece of homestead land citing the petitioner as a homestead less person. In this regard factual report of Tahasildar, Pattamundai has been received in which it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner Muralidhar Mallick of village-Kasananta under Tahasil Pattamundai is not a homestead less person.

Gone through the records. Heard the parties and perused the relevant documents, I am of considered opinion that a Government Land cannot be settled in favour of any person having homestead land. In this case the petitioner is not homestead less person."

(emphasis supplied)

On query from Court Mr. Behera submits, his client has not been given copy of factual report made by the Tahsildar. He reiterates, his client has only a share of seven links in the homestead land, where his relatives are residing.

4. Petitioner is entitled to elaboration on the reason for rejection of his application for allotment of land. His contention is that having a

// 3 //

share in homestead land, where he is not residing, cannot disqualify him as having homestead land. We notice from the judgment that petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) no.17034 of 2018, wherein his contention was for allotment of land under 'Basundhara Yojana'.

5. The judgment does not speak about contents of the report, in having noticed petitioner's contention regarding the homestead land being enjoyed by his relatives and him residing elsewhere. Solely on such omission we are inclined to interfere, to set aside the judgment and restore petitioner's application to the Collector. Opposite party no.3 is directed to consider petitioner's application afresh and deal with it as expeditiously as possible. The interim order to continue till two weeks after decision on the application is informed to petitioner.

6. The writ petition and the application are disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Sks