Orissa High Court
Raja Kishore Choudhury vs Deputy Commissioner on 11 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33566 of 2023
Raja Kishore Choudhury .... Petitioners
Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
Deputy Commissioner, A.O. ODA .... Opposite Parties
Court of Bhubaneswar and Another
Mr. Niranjan Maharana, Advocate for opposite party No.1
Opposite party No.2 in person
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 11.10.2023
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioners, opposite party No.2 in person and Mr. Maharana,
learned counsel for opposite party No.1.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction
to opposite party No.1 to conduct an enquiry by appointing a
Commission (Advocates/Revenue Officers/Technical Person) in
presence of the parties and to call for the records of UAP Case
No.64 of 2009 and UAP Case No.430 of 2023 for its analogous
hearing and final disposal on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners submits that the impugned order under Annexure-4 series
is not maintainable which is with regard to denial vis-à-vis
engagement of a Commission thereby accepting Amin's report, a
copy of which is at Annexure-2. It is further submitted that for
proper and effective adjudication of the dispute pending between
the petitioners and opposite party No.2, a Commission is required
to be engaged.
4. Opposite party No.2 in person appears, who has filed
Caveat Petition No.1501 of 2023 and would submit that a copy of
the writ petition has not been served on him. Learned counsel for
the petitioners in response to the above, served a copy of the writ
petition on opposite party No.2 in the Court itself. Furthermore,
according to opposite party No.2, the filing of the writ petition is
pre-mature since because in the meantime, there has been a
demarcation held with submission of Amin's report i.e. Annexure-2.
5. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for opposite party No.1
submits that the Amin's report is yet to be examined awaiting final
hearing and adjudication by opposite party No.1.
6. Since the demarcation has been held with an Amin's report
in place pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4740 of 202, a
copy of which is at Annexure-1, the Court is of the considered view
that there is no necessity for any such appointment of a Commission
for fresh demarcation or verification at the spot since in the
meantime, such report has already been received and yet to be
examined by opposite party No.1 before whom the proceeding is
pending for final disposal. In other words, the Court is not inclined
to entertain the writ petition, however, is of the view that the
acceptance of the Amin's report which has been received by
opposite party No.1 may be objected to by the petitioners for a
decision according to law. The Court is also view that it is up to
opposite party No.1 to take a call as to the need for a spot
inspection, if really required. With the above observations and
conclusion so reached at, the Court is of the view that the writ
petition should be disposed of.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules as
prayed for by opposite party No.2.
10. A free copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Maharana,
learned counsel for opposite party No.1 for communication and
early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 12-Oct-2023 12:07:01
