DILLIP KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Behera, learned ASC for the State.

(2.) Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders arising out of OPLE Case No.15 of 2022-23 on the grounds stated therein.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner as made to reveal from order dtd. 17/6/2022 (Annexure-1) in OPLE Case No.15 of 2022-23 which was challenged in appeal but without any result with disposal of the same by order under Annexure-2 and later on confirmed vide Annexure-3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the revenue record in the meantime by filing Consolidation Revision Case No.139 of 2022 pending before the court of learned Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack under Sec. 37 of the OCH and PFL Act, hence, in such view of the matter, opposite party No.3 should not have directed eviction with the issuance of notice under Sec. 7(1)of the OPLE Act and subsequently, upheld vide Annexures-2 and 4, so therefore, the impugned action is unjust and arbitrary.