Akshaya Kumar Muduli vs Director Of Estate
2023 Latest Caselaw 2568 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.10782 of 2013

        Akshaya Kumar Muduli                          ....               Petitioner
                                                     Mr. J.K. Mohanty, Advocate


                                          -Versus-


        Director of Estate, Department of              ....        Opposite Parties
        General Administration, Govt. of
        Orissa, Bhubaneswar and Others
                                                       Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA
                                 Mr. MD. G. Madani, Advocate for O.P. No.4
                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                         ORDER

Order                                  29.03.2023
No.
 06.    1.         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rout, learned

AGA for the State-opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite parties not to evict him and taking coercive action in respect of the OMFED booth run and managed by him from over plot No.1720 situate over the land of the GA Department, Government of Odisha, Unit-9, Bhubaneswar on the grounds stated therein.

3. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25672 of 2013 as the land allotted, falls under category-'C' thereof, by the GA Department which is the Nodal Agency to finalize the site selection as well as to carry out

necessary construction preferably within a period of two months from then with consequential direction that till such period, the petitioners therein not to be evicted. It is submitted that since the OMFED booth temporarily allotted in favour of the petitioner falls within the category-'C' of the said judgment in W.P.(C) No.25672 of 2013, the writ petition may be disposed of for consideration of his grievance in the light of the aforesaid direction.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 is present and fairly admits that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.25672 of 2013, the OMFED booth having been temporarily allotted to him by the G.A. Department.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered in view of the above submissions.

6. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms and until a decision is taken as per the direction in W.P.(C) No.25672 of 2013, the petitioner may not be evicted.

7. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Tudu