Orissa High Court
Pratap Kumar Pradhan And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1104 of 2024
Pratap Kumar Pradhan and others .... Petitioners
Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite parties
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
07.05.2025
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
impugned order in FAO No.06 of 2023 by learned Additional
District Judge, Talcher as at Annexure-5 confirming the order in
I.A. No.46 of 2022 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Talcher arising
out of C.S. No.170 of 2022 on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land at least from
1997 which is duly proved with the initiation of OPLE proceedings
earlier. It is further submitted that the legality of such proceeding
was once challenged in RFA No.9 of 2005 corresponding to T.S.
No.13 of 2001 and it was decreed with a finding that the Authority
concerned has no jurisdiction to proceed against them under the
provisions of the OPLE Act. The further submission is that again a
similar proceeding was initiated and it was dropped in view of the
decree in T.S. No.13 of 2001 by the court of Additional District
Judge, Talcher upon disposal of RFA No.9 of 2005. The
submission is that a proceeding was further initiated vide OPP Case
No.25 of 2021 and the same is under challenge in OPP Appeal
No.11 of 2022. The contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel is
that in spite of the fact that the earlier proceedings were initiated
and therein, the possession of the petitioners stood admitted and
in the meantime, the suit in C.S. No.170 of 2022 was instituted by
them seeking confirmation of title on account of such adverse
possession and therein, I.A. No.46 of 2022 was filed seeking
injunction, it was disallowed and later confirmed in FAO No.06 of
2023. The further contention is that in view of the earlier
proceedings under the OPLE Act and the one in OPP Case No.25
of 2021, the possession of the petitioners vis-à-vis suit schedule
land is confirmed, considering which, learned courts below ought
to have passed interim order, while dealing with an application
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 but it has led to the passing of the
impugned orders at Annexures-4 and 5 respectively.
4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State, on the other
hand, seriously opposed the contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioners with the claim that the petitioners
having challenged the initiation of the proceedings and pendency
of OPP Appeal Case No.11 of 2022, such an action cannot be
challenged in the suit, which is barred in view of Section 16 of the
Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Ac. In
reply and response to the above, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel
would submit that there is no bar as such, since the title is claimed
by the petitioners on account of adverse possession in respect of
the suit schedule land.
5. A copy of the judgment in FAO No.9 of 2005 is produced
today in the Court by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
petitioners in view of the order dated 23rd April, 2025 and the
same is perused. On a reading of the said judgment, the Court
finds that the action initiated under the OPLE Act was challenged
in connection with Encroachment Case No.39 of 1997-98 and it
was held to be without jurisdiction. As earlier stated and also
revealed from the record, a similar proceeding was initiated
thereafter and it was dropped. Finally, OPP Case No.25 of 2021
was initiated against the petitioners and the same is pending in
appeal before the Authority concerned. As far as the possession of
the petitioners is concerned, according to Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for them, the same stood revealed from the
record in view of the initiation of the OPLE proceeding in the year
1997-98. The Court finds that though such a fact has been taken
cognizance of by the learned courts below but pending disposal of
the suit, no order of injunction was passed. It is apprised to the
Court that hearing of the suit has not commenced. As it further
appears, WS is filed by defendant No.2, a copy of which is at
Annexure-2. Considering the above facts and in view of the
initiation of proceedings earlier and the first one being in the year
1997-98, referring to which, possession is claimed by the
petitioners, the Court is of the view that such possession is needed
to be protected, till the time of disposal of the suit with a direction
to learned court below to expedite disposal of the same. In other
words, it is a fit case, where, an order of status quo should be
directed to be maintained, till the time, the suit in C.S. No.170 of
2022 is disposed of within a stipulated period as the same would
rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CMP stands allowed. Consequently, the
impugned orders as at Annexures-4 and 5 are hereby set aside with
a direction that there shall be status quo maintained in respect of
the suit schedule land till disposal of the suit in C.S. No.170 of
2022. It is further directed that learned Senior Civil Judge, Talcher
shall do well to immediately commence the hearing of the suit and
ensure disposal of the same within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, however,
there is no order as to costs.
8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
9. A copy of the order be also handed over to Mr. P.K.
Mohanty, learned ASC for onward intimation to the opposite
parties.
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
