Orissa High Court
Bapi Singh vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Parties on 4 June, 2025
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15701 of 2025
1. Bapi Singh .... Petitioners
2. Rimalini Lenka
Mr.Jagannath Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Orissa .... Opposite Parties
2. The Commissioner, Talcher
Municipal Corporation, Angul
3. The Collector, Talcher
4. The Sub-Collector, Talcher
5. Tahasildar, Talcher
6. Executive Officer, Talcher
Municipal Corporation, Angul
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 04.06.2025
01. (Through Hybrid mode)
1. This writ application has been filed considering the objection under
Section 254 (2) of the Odisha Municipal Act as given under Annexure-5 and
direct the opposite party no.6 not to demolish the house of the petitioner over
the schedule land.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
apprehend that in spite of order dated 11.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.
7000 of 2025, their house will be demolished and as a consequence of which
they shall be evicted from the said property.
3. Vide the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7000 of 2025
filed by the petitioner and his wife-Rimalini Lenka, this Court had directed as
follows:-
"Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into account the judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed
in W.P.(C) No.16110 of 2024 and batch of Writ Petitions, this Court is
inclined to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioners. Accordingly, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to
refrain from any further eviction-related actions concerning the
Petitioners' occupancy of the disputed property until fresh and
reasoned order is issued. It is further made clear that the Petitioners
should be allowed to produce the documents relating to the alleged
encroached plots/housing and they shall be given personal hearing
before passing a reasoned order by the Talcher Municipality. Any
deviation to this direction should be treated as a case for contempt."
4. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners had filed a representation on
15.03.2025 along with the copy of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 7000 of 2025. Thereafter after receipt of notice dated
07.05.2025, the petitioners have submitted another representation before the
opposite parties.
5. In W.P.(C) No. 7000 of 2025, this Court had directed that till a
reasoned order is passed by the Talcher Municipality, no eviction related
actions concerning the petitioners' occupancy of the disputed property shall
be taken, there should be no apprehension by the petitioners that they shall be
evicted from the property in question.
6. Hence, no direction is necessary to be issued to the opposite party no.6
not to demolish the house of the petitioner over the schedule land.
7. The writ application is disposed of.
8. It is needless to say that if any final order is passed by the opposite
party no.6 and the petitioners are aggrieved by it, it is open to them to
challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
(Savitri Ratho)
Vacation Judge
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa HIgh Court
Date: 04-Jun-2025 19:32:26
