PADMABATI SAHOO Vs. COLLECTOR, KEONJHAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a long chequered career. Originally the land under Hal Plot No.56 Area 0.24 decimals in Mouza-Madhapur, Samil Bhairabpur, Jail Road, Keonjhar was recorded in the name of Government. Government leased out the property in favour of one Narottam Parida in 1948. Narottam stayed with his family over the disputed property by constructing a house thereon. In the meantime, he died and his wife was residing thereon. An attempt was made by Government to evict the wife of Narottam Parida with an intention to construct a Government quarter thereon resulting Chandri Parida wife of Narottam Parida filed T.S. No.11/2002 claiming title over the suit property making the Collector as well as the Tahasildar as defendants. Suit bearing T.S. No.11/2002 was decreed with declaration of title over both the Plot Nos.55 & 56 measuring Ac.0.24 decimals as a whole following drawal of decree.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, Sri N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 15.9.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.16171/2016 it was incumbent on the part of the appellate authority to first pass order on maintainability of the proceeding for existence of a judgment and decree of Civil Court, involving T.S. No.11/2002. Sri Sahu alleged that the final order involving the matter has been passed in the appeal entering into merit is in sheer non-compliance of the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16171/2016. Sri Sahu also contended that for the existence of a judgment and decree involving T.S. No.11/2002, the appellate order is otherwise bad in law for absolute non-consideration of the same. Further, as the appeal has been decided behind the back of the petitioner which is also otherwise not permissible in the eye of law. It is thus claimed that the order impugned suffers for non-compliance of principle of natural justice also. It is under the above circumstance, Sri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court for interference in the impugned order and setting aside the same.

(3.) Sri U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the O.Ps.1 to 3 while opposing each submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the plea taken in the counter affidavit and the documents appended therein submitted that there is no wrong in the decision of the appellate authority requiring no interference of this Court in the impugned order.