GOPINATH BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases being inter -linked, were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. For better appreciation, we will refer to the averments made in OJC No. 8421 of 1999.

(2.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of the office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur (for short, 'the Commissioner). He is a lessee in respect of Nazul plot No. 1614/ 51 situated in Sambalpur town. A road adjoining to the said plot appertains to Nazul plot No. 1614/53. Since the said road has been encroached upon by opposite parties 3 and 4 and others, he moved the Commissioner Under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioner Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by filing a petition seeking for issuance of necessary direction for removal of encroachment. The aforesaid petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995 and by order dated 23.5.1997 at Annexure -4 the Commissioner disposed of the case by directing the Tahsildar to initiate encroachment cases against the encroachers. A further direction was also given that lease of Nazul Plot No. 1614/54 measuring Ac. 0.06 dec. in respect of one Prasanna Kumar Panda be cancelled since he has sold the same to opposite party No. 4 without prior permission from the competent authority. Again the petitioner moved the Commissioner by filing Misc. Case No. 6 of 1998 for taking expeditious steps pursuant to the order passed in the earlier Misc. Case at Annexure -4. On the basis of certain reports furnished by the Tahsildar, direction was given to the Collector, Sambalpur, to take steps for cancellation of the sale deed of opposite party No. 4 by filing a suit in the Civil Court. Since no action was taken despite necessary direction by the Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ to evict opposite party No. 4 from that part of the road which he has encroached and to take legal steps to get the sale deed declared as illegal and void.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the necessary documents and orders available on record. It is borne out from the record produced before us that pursuant to the order of the Commissioner. Nazul Misc. Case No. 3 of 1997 under Rule 34 (e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules was initiated by the Tahsildar, Sambalpur and final order was passed on 20.3.1998 for making necessary correction of the major settlement plots as well as the map which relate to the Nazul plots in question. So far as opposite party No. 4 is concerned, Resumption Case vide Misc. Case No. 3 of 1998 was registered and by order dated 11.1.1999 the Tahsildar disposed of the same with the observation that since the transfer of the leasehold land by Shri Panda was without permission of the Collector, the latter is the competent authority to re -enter into the land and having observed thus, he submitted the case to the Collector for taking action in the matter.