AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicants. He submits, his clients are affected by order dated 24th February, 2023, by which the writ petition was disposed of. Hence, his clients, not having been made parties, did not have notice of the case.
He refers to letter dated 4th June, 2021 addressed by Executive Officer, Puri Municipality to Additional Sub-Collector, Settlement Office, Puri with request for providing present status of the land for work of construction of C.C. road and drain as mentioned. A paragraph from letter is reproduced below.
“Some local people of the area demanded that, the area mentioned above belongs to their private property for which the construction of road & drain could not be started. Since Chakratirtha Mouza is a not final one, the status of disputed land could not be ascertained from Tahasil Office.”
Mr. Das then relies on the reply dated 23rd June, 2021 by the Additional Sub-Collector. He submits, the correspondence clearly shows that there is road to be constructed on land claimed by writ petitioners as to be purchased/settled on them. In the circumstances, said order disposing of the writ petition be recalled for his clients to be heard.
Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.8 (Puri Municipality).
Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of writ petitioners and submits, the land was to be leased out to his clients as per order dated 23rd December, 2000 made by Collector, Puri. Applicants have been set up to obstruct his clients. The application is vexatious and should be dismissed.
Prayer in the writ petition was for mandamus directing execution of lease deed. By our order dated 24th February, 2023 we had disposed of the writ petition upon hearing the administration on their contention of the premium to be calculated on present market value. In the circumstances, scope of the writ petition does not admit inquiry into applicants’ claim of right, title or interest in any part of portion of the land to be demised. Applicants, if they have a good claim may find remedy as available to them in law.
With above observation, the review application is disposed of.
…………………………