CUTTACK, India, Feb. 23 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 22:

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the abovementioned Writ Petitions and the CONTCs, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No.23059 of 2023 is treated as the leading case.

2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, contending that the same has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions arising out of the same subject matter.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner and his forefathers have been in occupation of a piece of Government land measuring 95 ft. x 80 ft., appertaining to Plot No. 790 and Plot No. 705 of Mouza Baramunda, over which an asbestos house has been constructed and the remaining portion has been enclosed by fencing.

(ii) Opposite Party No. 3 initiated O.P.P. Case No. 78 of 1986 against the predecessors of the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised occupation of Government land.

(iii) In response to the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, the predecessor of the petitioner submitted a detailed show-cause reply, inter alia contending that he was not an unauthorised occupant and that he had been in possession of the case land since the time of his ancestors, thereby claiming to have perfected title by way of adverse possession.

(iv) It is further the case of the petitioner that during the year 1957-1958, a Waste Land Case being W.L. Case No. 21 of 1957-58 was initiated for settlement of Government land measuring Ac. 8.90 decimals out of Plot No. 899 under Khata No. 3 of Mouza Baramunda in the name of the petitioner's uncle, namely Alekha Sahoo, and others, wherein an Istahar was issued inviting public objections for settlement of the land.

(v) Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was called upon to file an application for settlement of the land in his favour, as the predecessor of the petitioner had lost his properties due to acquisition of land for establishment of the Odisha Agriculture University. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has no other dwelling house except the house standing over the case land.

(vi) During the settlement operation, the name of the petitioner was recorded as an encroacher in the remarks column of the record-of-rights. It is further stated that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has been assessing holding tax in respect of the case land in the name of the petitioner since 1977-1978.

(vii) Opposite Party No. 2, in the said proceeding, instead of dropping the case, recorded a finding that the petitioner had not taken steps to get his right, title and interest declared by a competent civil court and, ultimately, passed an order of eviction vide order dated 07.04.1988 in O.P.P. Case No. 79/86 (L).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpCc7dWXoCvroPKs6IgNC%2BiGcYnD7rO%2BQyb6mMjttOgDK&caseno=CONTC/2473/2023&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010282592023&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.