Sachidananda Dehury vs State Of Odisha & Others

R.K. Pattanaik, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State-opposite party Nos. 1 to 4.

No notice is issued to opposite party No.5 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the eviction notice i.e. Annexure-2 on the ground that due process has not been followed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently the eviction notice was issued i.e. on 2nd September, 2023 despite long possession of the petitioner which is supported by Annexure-1 series and representation filed thereafter i.e. Annexure-3 and hence, any such eviction by opposite party No.5 would be arbitrary and illegal.

Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 submits that as the possession of the petitioner appears to be unauthorized, rightly, therefore, opposite party No.5 issued eviction notice vide Annexure-2.

Since the petitioner claims possession of the schedule land situate over plot No. 2421, khata No. 901 of the Mouza in question ever since 1985 and in the meantime, he has submitted representation i.e. Annexure-3, the Court is of the considered view that before any such eviction/demolition in respect of the standing structure situate over the said land, such plea vide Annexure-3 should be examined in first place by the authority concerned which would rather serve the purpose and advance the cause of justice.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.5 to consider and examine Annexure-3 and thereafter, to pass necessary order in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order sand till such time, status quo shall be maintained in respect of the schedule land.

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules and in course of the day.

…………………………