Sibaram Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12419 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P (C) No. 31729 of 2023

Sibaram Sahu                            .....                              Petitioner
                                                           Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Adv.
                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                        Opposite Parties
                                                            Mr. L. Samantray, AGA
               CORAM:
                   ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
                   MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                            ORDER

11.10.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Director of Estate and Ex-officio Addl. Secretary rejecting the claim of the petitioner for settlement of the land in his favour.

4. Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one Prasanna Kumar Das had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14457 of 2011, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.06.2012 directing the opposite parties to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner after completing the allotment process and that the Special Secretary, G.A. Department was directed to register the land in question in the name of the petitioner and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. It is contended that Prasanna Kumar Das could not pay the premium amount and, therefore, the land was in occupation of the petitioner since 1970 and, therefore, the same should be settled in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that

had the land been settled in favour of Prasanna Kumar Das then the petitioner may not have any grievance. It is contended that if five other persons have been given such benefit, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of settlement of the land in his favour by rejecting his claim by the authority vide order dated 03.08.2023.

5. Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that against the judgment passed by this Court on 25.06.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 14457 of 2011, the State preferred appeal before the apex Court, which was dismissed. Thereby, a right has been accrued in favour of Prasanna Kumar Das. But, question arises if benefit has been given to five persons, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, as the legal representatives of Prasanna Kumar Das, then the petitioner may not have any grievance. But if any other five persons are given the benefit, then certainly the petitioner has grievance and to that extent he wants to obtain instructions by the next date.

6. Let three extra copies of the writ petition be served on Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties within three days enabling him to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date.

7. List this matter after two weeks.

                 Ashok                                           (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant (M.S. RAMAN) Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT ORISSA JUDGE Date: 12-Oct-2023 11:49:26