BISWANATH BISHOYI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against the petitioner vide LEC No. 152 of 1988. The said proceeding was disposed of by order dated 26.7.1988 as appearing at Annexure -4 holding the petitioner to be an encroacher and finally directing issuing a notice of eviction on the encroacher (the petitioner) under section 7(1) of the OPLE Act to vacate the encroachment within the period specified therein. Being aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub -Collector, Berhampur vide L.E.A. 49/88 which was disposed of on contest by order dated 8.8.1990 dismissing the appeal. As against the said appeal order, the petitioner filed a Revision vide OPLE Revision No. 42/90. The Revision was dismissed, confirming the orders of the Tahsildar as well as the Appellate Authority.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the above three orders, the petitioner filed writ, vide O.J.C. No. 1790/1992 which was decided by the Division Bench by order dated 27.6.1992 on contest in favour of the petitioner thereby remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority for its fresh consideration in the light of the observations made therein. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.6.1992 passed in the OJC is quoted herein below:

(3.) DURING the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the report of the R.I. prepared in presence of the appellant -petitioner in OPLE Revision Case No. 42/1990 available at page 16 of the brief. The enquiry report dated 25.6.1988 reveals that all the villagers are encroaching the land and he, therefore, directed the A.D.M. to cause eviction of the encroachers before settling the case. It is on the basis of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in possession of the land for more than five years prior to the appointed date, 9.1.1991. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for the intervener who vehemently objects the recording of possession of the five years on the appointed date in favour of the petitioner. He disputes the observations of the R.I. in its report and strenuously argued that the petitioner was not in possession of the land for more than five years prior to the appointed date thus provision under the amended Act has no application to the petitioner's case and the Revisional Authority has not committed any wrong.