BIDULATA BEHERA; PRABHASH KUMAR MAHABHOI; SARASWATI NAIK & OTHERS; ASHOK DAS; GATIKRUSHNA PARIDA @ GATIKRISNA PARIDA; SAMIRA BEHERA @ SAMIR KUMAR BEHERA; MAKHAN SINGH MAHABHOI; RINKI MAHAKHUD; SATRUGHNA MAHAKUD; BHARAT CHANDRA BARIK; SANJAYA KUMAR BEHERA; Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the above fourteen Writ petitions filed by different individual challenging initiation of Encroachment Appeal by an incompetent person, consequential issuance of show cause notice as against the petitioners involving in all the above writ petitions and as the petitioners have a common set of pleadings and submissions further Opp. parties are also common in all the cases, all the fourteen matters are taken up together and are being decided in this common judgment.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.C.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the StateOpp.parties.

(3.) In assailing the initiation of Encroachment Appeal pending before the Sub-Collector,Kamakshyanagar, Mr.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the above writ petitions referring to the memorandum of appeal at Annexure-4 in the writ petitions and showing the cause title of the appeal, contended that the appeals though have been filed by the State of Orissa but being represented through the Head Clerk of the Office of Tahasildar, Kamakshyanagar. In establishing his allegation that the appeals with such representations are not maintainable, Mr.Behera contended that the Head Clerk of the Tahasil Office is incompetent to represent an appeal on behalf of the State under the provisions of O.P.L.E.Act. Mr.Behera, learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a Notification issued by the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Excise Department in the matter of direction to concerned authorities empowering the appropriate authority to file appeal. Apart from the above, Mr.Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases also raises the question of delay in filing the appeal and submitted that Appeals were also otherwise not maintainable in absence of application for condonation of delay.