Orissa High Court
Narayan Seth vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2024
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.25545 of 2024
Narayan Seth .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
12.11.2024
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for
the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a declaration
that Section 22 of the OLR Act is not applicable to Gharabari land
and a direction to the opposite parties to publish notification to
exclude the same from the purview of the said Act as it is situate in
the urban area and to allow the registration of the sale deed in
respect thereof on the grounds stated.
3. In course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court
that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2023
and batch of matters with the lead case in Hemant Nayak Vrs. State
of Odisha decided and disposed of on 23rd August, 2024 held and
observed that inclusion of the land in urban area or within a
Municipal Corporation would not exclude applicability of the
provisions of the OLR Act and in particular, Section 22 thereof and
directed the competent revenue authority for a fact finding enquiry in
each case regarding usability of the land in question other than for
agricultural purposes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter
may perhaps be disposed of in the light of the decision of this Court
in the above noted cases as the same would serve the purpose.
5. Again learned counsel for the State submits that a direction
may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to consider a fact
finding enquiry conducted through a competent revenue authority in
view of the plea of the petitioner.
6. A copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 27920 of 2023 and
batch of matters is produced in Court today and the same is perused.
7. Considering the grievance of the petitioner and submission of
learned counsel for the State and in view of the decision (supra)
holding therein that a enquiry with a report by competent revenue
authority is necessary in respect of a land situate in an urban area or
Municipal Corporation, the Court is of the view that such demand for
execution of sale deed with an order by opposite party No.3 is
required to be preceded by an enquiry and orders of opposite party
No.2 vis-à-vis usability of the land question as Gharabari other than
for agricultural purposes.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the
direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that opposite party No.2
shall do well to attend to the petitioner's case and in view of the
decision in the case of Hemant Nayak (supra) to direct a fact finding
enquiry in terms thereof and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the
matter at the earliest with an order on merit preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It
is made clear that after an enquiry so held pursuant to the above
order, further course of action shall be followed as per law and
without delay.
10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
