Orissa High Court
Brajabandhu Sahoo & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.227 of 2014
Brajabandhu Sahoo & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate O.P. Nos.8 to 21
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
12.01.2023
Order No.
05. 1. This review petition seeks the recall of an order dated 30th
October, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014.
2. A perusal of the said order reveals that the main prayer by the
original writ petitioners was for implementation of the orders passed
purportedly under the Odisha Public Land Encroachment Act against
33 persons termed as 'encroachers'. The grievance was that the
authorities were not taking steps to remove such 'encroachers' on
Government ('gochar')land.
3. A further perusal of the order reveals that none of those 33
'encroachers' were made parties to the writ petition. There were
seven Opposite Parties in the writ petition. They were represented by
Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the State. The order further reveals
that only two counsel were heard - one Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and other Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for
the State (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7). In other words neither were
the 33 'encroachers' made parties nor was there any occasion for
anyone to appear on their behalf. The writ petition was disposed of
by the above order dated 30th October, 2014.
4. The said order was adverse to the said 33 so-called encroachers
as the operative portion of the order was a direction to the Collector,
Khordha to "ensure and co-ordination with the other authorities as
may be considered necessary" eviction of the '33 encroachers with
their constructions on the land mentioned here in above'.
5. After the present twenty review-petitioners came to know of the
aforementioned order, they first filed SLP(C) No.21067 of 2014 in
the Supreme Court of India. The said SLP was listed for hearing on
17th December, 2014 and the following order was passed:-
'Taken on board.
Dimissed.'
6. The SLP was, therefore, dismissed in limine. It is now well
settled by the Supreme Court of India in a series of decisions
including Kunhaymmed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 that
in limine dismissal of the SLP at the very first hearing does not mean
a confirmation of the order of the High Court against which such
SLP is filed.
7. Thereafter the present review petition was filed on 24th
December, 2014 praying for recall of the judgment dated 30th
October, 2014 principally on the ground that the review-petitioners
were not made parties to the writ petition in which the above order
adverse to them was passed. This review petition was dismissed on
16th January, 2017 for non-prosecution but was restored by an order
dated 20th March, 2018 in CMAPL No.51 of 2017.
8. In the meanwhile, the review-petitioners also filed W.P.(C)
No.23099 of 2015 on 21st December, 2015 in this Court in which an
interim order was passed by the Court on 8th January, 2016 directing
status quo to be maintained in respect of the land in question, i.e.,
Plot No.2115 measuring Ac 3.430 decimals at Mouza-Bhagabatipur,
Tahasil-Chilika. That interim order has continued.
9. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath,
learned counsel appearing for the review-petitioners and Mr. P.K.
Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original writ-
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014.
10.Although Mr. Mohanty contended that since orders had been
passed against each of the 'encroachers' and the only issue was
regarding non-implementation of such removal orders, it was not
considered necessary to implead specifically each of the said
'encroachers' as parties to the writ petition.
11.Once it is plain that the writ petitioners were seeking orders
against such 'encroachers' it was imperative for them to be
impleaded as parties to the writ petition. No order adverse to such
persons could have been passed without giving them an opportunity
of being heard. This is irrespective of the fact that they may have
been heard in the proceedings initiated under the OPLE Act.
12.On that short ground, this Court recalls and reviews the order
dated 30th October, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014 and
restores W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014 to file.
13.The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
