SUNIL KUMAR JANA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rout, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients are in possession. Impugned is order dtd. 17/2/2007 made by the Board of Revenue. The Board had pointed out that order dtd. 5/1/1998 was against his clients and appeal therefrom did not lie to the Board but, to the Collector. Pursuant to such observation learned advocate for petitioners withdrew the appeal. He submits, petitioners" challenge is actually directed against said order dtd. 5/1/1998, which could not have been passed in face of earlier order made by the Tahsildar.

(2.) Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and points out, petitioners are allegedly aggrieved by the order passed on 5/1/1998. Even impugned order of the Board was passed as far back as on 17/2/2017. The writ petition was presented on 30/11/2022. It should be dismissed in limine. Mr. Rout in reply submits, earlier writ petition was filed in year 2017 but withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

(3.) By order dtd. 5/1/1998, the Tahsildar had directed for starting misc. case for taking over possession under sec. 5(h) of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Going by prayer made in the writ petition Court has reason to believe, petitioners are still in possession. In the circumstances, they may find their remedy in appeal against said order dtd. 5/1/1998, if permissible in law.