LAXMIPRIYA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts and points of law involved in all the Misc. Cases being same, all the Misc. Cases were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The' petitioners have filed the aforesaid first appeals challenging the Judgments and decrees dated 30th September, 2000, 19th September, 2002 and 26th September, 2002 respectively passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 246/2000 and T.S. Nos. 245 and 249 of 2000. The prayer in the aforesaid suits was for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff-petitioners over the suit lands by adverse possession. Admittedly, the lands in dispute appertaining to General Administration Department, Plot No. 2292 measuring AO. 2.593 decs were Government lands. The General Administration Department allotted the said lands for industrial purposes to different applicants by executing lease deeds. Opposite Parties 4 and 5 are among such applicants, in whose favour lease deeds have been executed by the Government. The Government in General Administration Department initiated proceedings under Orissa Public Premises Eviction Act (for short O.P.P. Act) for evicting the present petitioners who were alleged to have been in unauthorized possession of the aforesaid Government lands. The said proceedings were registered as O.P.P. Case Nos. 42, 43 and 31 of 2000 respectively. The Estate Officer after following the paraphernalia, stipulated under the said Act, passed orders of eviction. The petitioners being aggrieved by such orders preferred appeals before the appellate authority. The petitioners also filed a writ application before this Court challenging the maintainability of the proceedings initiated under the O.P.P. Act. This Court held that the proceedings for eviction initiated against the petitioners under the O.P.P. Act were maintainable but then the encroachers should not be evicted until disposal of the suits. In the meanwhile the O.P.P. appeals were heard and dismissed by a reasoned order which have become final and binding.

(3.) While matters stood thus, it appears, the petitioners along with some other encroachers approached this Court in OJC No. 5870 of 2000 with a prayer to direct the Government to lease out or settle the suit land in their favour and to stay the proceedings initiated under the O.P.P. Act. The said writ application was dismissed. The petitioners also filed petitions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to restrain the State Government from evicting them during the pendency of the suits. The trial Court rejected the petitions on the ground that the lands belong to the State and the petitioners had no prima facie case. Against the said orders, the petitioners filed Misc. Appeals. This Court disposed of the appeals but then protected the petitioners from eviction until disposal of the suits and further directed that the suits should be disposed of within a targeted date.