DHOBA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. A. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order under Annexure-4 passed by Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, Orissa, Berhampur vide Revision Case No.86 of 2001 on the ground of maintainability in view of provision contained in Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972.

(3.) Facts as reveal from the case is that an Encroachment Proceeding was initiated against opposite party no.4 at the instance of opposite party no.3. The said encroachment case was rejected by the Tahasildar. Thereafter, the opposite party no.4 preferred an appeal as provided under the O.P.L.E. Act and the said appeal was also dismissed. Opposite party no.4 being aggrieved with the order passed by the Tahasildar and the Appellate Authority preferred a Revision before the Revisional Authority, which was also dismissed. It is submitted at the Bar that a suo motu Revision vide O.P.L.E. R.C. No.86 of 2001 was initiated following provision under Section 12(3) of the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972. It is alleged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in view of strict provision under Section 12 of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, no second revision can be entertained on the premises that there was already a Revision decided under the Act vide O.P.L.E. Revision No.4 of 2001 under Section 12(2) of the O.P.L.E. Act.