Shyam Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. K.C. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to take immediate steps for changing of record of right of home including homestead land measuring an area of 10 decimal in the name of the petitioner which provided to Dalli Pradhan under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme against losing of land as well as against death benefits of his deceased son within a time frame. He has further prayed to direct opposite party no.3-Collector, Angul to consider and dispose of the long standing grievance/representation of the petitioner under Annexure-3 series.

Mr. K.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is suffering a lot due to non grant of the benefits as due and admissible to him, for which, he has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 5 contended that the grievance of the petitioner for disposal of the representation has been taken care of, but due to pendency of the case, the same has not been disposed of.

On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 5, it is seen that at paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have stated as follows:-

“That narrating the allegations made in the writ petition the petitioner has filed a representation before the Collector, Angul on 18.11.2021. Pursuance to the said representation and as per the direction of the Collector, the Tahasildar, Chhendipada in order to cause an inquiry has issued notice to the petitioner so also to his daughter in law Dali Pradhan on 20.06.2022. In spite of such notice Dali Pradhan did not appear to co-operate the inquiry. Such report has been submitted to the Collector, Angul but the Collector, has not taken any decision on such issue as matter is pending subjudice in the present writ application.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 5, more particularly the statements made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the Collector, Angul-opposite party no.3 to consider the grievance petition of the petitioner under Annexure-3 series on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Chhendipada, so that the benefit can be extended to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

………………………………..