KAMALKANTA JENA Vs. STATE OF ODISHAAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Susrita Sahu, Advocate, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 4, and Mr. Jena, learned counsel for opposite party No.5.

(2.) Instant writ petition is filed by the petitionersfor a direction to the opposite parties not to evict them from the schedule land appertaining to Plot Nos. 199,929 and 634, Khata No.330; Plot No.1,Khata No.331; and Plot No.1015, Khata No.312 situate in the concerned Mouza without providing any opportunity of hearing and considering their claim for settlement of the same.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned action under Annexure-1 and eviction notices vide Annexure-4 series and issuance thereof to be bad in law since petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have challenged the decision presently pending in Revision Case Nos.17, 18, 20 and 21 of 2019, wherein, interim orders against any coercive measure have been passed and while claiming so, he refers to Annexure-2 series. Furthermore, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate refers to Annexure-3 series claiming that an application for exchange of private land owned by petitioner No.5 is also pending decision and hence, issuance of notices under Annexure-4 series to be untenable in law. That apart, according to Mr. Mishra, in so far as petitioner Nos. 6 to 8 are concerned, none of them have been provided an opportunity of hearing before the action followed vide Annexur-4 series preceded by Annexure-1. It is contended that petitioner Nos.6 to 8 are landless persons which stands admitted by the State in the counter affidavit. So, therefore, it is further contended that the said petitioners since claim possession for more than thirty years being eligible and entitled for settlement of the schedule land under OPLE Act, no any opportunity was provided to them to agitate the same by the authority concerned, namely, opposite party No.4 before issuance of eviction notices vide Anenxure-4 series. In such view of the matter, it is lastly submitted that the action under challenge pursuant to Annexure-1 and followed by Annexure-4 series istherefore liable to be interfered with and quashed.