Orissa High Court
Niranjan Sahoo And Others vs State Of Orissa And Another on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12183 of 2023
Niranjan Sahoo and Others .... Petitioners
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa and Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. YSP Babu, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
02.05.2023
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Babu, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
impugned notices under Annexure-4 series in Form 'Ka' issued under
OPLE Act pending disposal of RFA No.2 of 2023 as against the
judgment in C.S. No.16 of 1987 vis-à-vis the schedule land on the
grounds stated therein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits notwithstanding
a decree in part by the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kujang
in CS No.16 of 1987 and pendency of appeal in RFA No.2 of 2023,
opposite party No.2 has issued notices vide Annexure-4 series in
response to which show cause was submitted vide Annexure-5,
however, authority concerned is sitting over the matter and not
taking any decision thereon and hence, a necessary direction is
required to be issued to him in that regard. Mr. Babu, learned AGA
for the State-opposite parties on the other hand submits that since
the show cause has already been submitted by the petitioner in
Form 'Ka' in response to impugned notices vide Annexure-4 series, a
direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to consider
the same and pass orders according to law.
4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a
copy of the judgment in CS No.16 of 1987 as at Annexure-1 and
submits that it was disposed of and decreed in part and for the
remainder, the plaintiffs therein approached this Court in RFA No.2
of 2023. It is also submitted that some of the petitioners were
defendants in the suit and it was decreed partially only respect of
passage of land excluding the schedule subject the fact which is
pleaded by opposite party No.2 in the show cause, however,
despite such a reply in response to Annexure-4 series, no decision
has so far been taken.
5. Considering the above facts and submission of the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the Court is of the view that since
the show cause has been submitted by the petitioner responding to
Annexure-4 series disclosing the details of the litigation in CS No.16
of 1987 and pendency of RFA No.2 of 2023, opposite party No.2 is
required to be issued with a direction to examine it and take a
decision at the earliest vis-à-vis the schedule land 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.2 to examine the show cause i.e.
Annexure-5 submitted in response to Annexure-4 series in Form 'ka'
and after providing personal hearing to the petitioners, to pass
necessary order as per and in accordance with the provisions of the
OPLE Act and complete the entire exercise preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and until then, not to take any coercive action against them over
the schedule land.
8. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
THAKURDAS Digitally signed by
THAKURDAS TUDU
TUDU Date: 2023.05.04 21:20:09
+05'30'
Tudu
