PURNA CHANDRA KODAMANSIGH Vs. ADMINISTRATOR JAGANNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties not to take any action in respect of Sabik Plot No. 2075 of Khata No. 627 extending to an area of Ac. 7.370 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 6 of Khata No. 733 towards South Eastern side of Mouza Malipada till the decree passed in favour of the petitioner is satisfied.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the aforesaid land was put on long term lease for operating stone quarry by the opposite party No. 2 vide Sairat Case No. 3/87 -88 in terms of the provisions contained under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 for a period of 5 years, i.e., from 31.8.1987 to 31.8.1992. Lease was settled in favour of the petitioner on 5.12.1987 but the petitioner could not operate from 31.8.1987 because of the delay in settling the lease in favour of the petitioner and prayed for adjustment of the said period. However, after developments were made in the area for operating quarry, successor of the Tahasildar who had settled the quarry in favour of the petitioner suddenly issued work order in favour of another person on 5.2.1989 and as a result the petitioner was debarred from operating the quarry. Having no other way the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector for setting aside the order dated 5.2.1989 passed by the Tahasildar but the matter was remanded back to the Tahasildar again. No inquiry after remand was taken till 31.8.1994 and Sairat Case No. 119 of 1994 -95 again started for the purpose of auction of said sairat. The petitioner having no other way filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda vide T.S. No. 46 of 1994. The said suit was decreed on 17.1.2000 and the present opposite parties 2 and 3 were permanently restrained from auctioning the suit land before allowing the petitioner to operate the said quarry for the remaining period of lease as well as further period of three months after expiry of his remaining period of lease. The learned Civil Judge further restrained the opposite parties 2 and 3 from taking any action in Sairat Case No. 119 of 1994 till expiry of the lease period of the petitioner. While the matter stood thus and the execution case was in progress, the opposite party No. 1 issued a public notice indicating therein that the aforesaid quarry shall be put to auction on 31.3.2006 and invited applications and challenging the said notice the present writ application has been filed solely on the ground that in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court the opposite party No. 1 cannot issue such a public notice or put the quarry to auction without compliance of the directions contained in the decree.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the sairat in question at one point of time was under the control of Tahasildar, Khurda (opposite party No. 2) and the lease in respect of the same had been granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years i.e., from 31.8.1987 to 31.8.1992. There is no dispute that since the petitioner could not operate the quarry because of the reasons mentioned in the writ petition, a suit was filed and decree was passed to the following effect: