The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of considering all aspects, including the relationship between the landlord and tenant, and providing an opportunity for evidence in cases of eviction and encroachment.

JUDGMENT :

R.C. Patnaik, J. - O.J.C. No. 1462 of 1979 is an application for judicial review by grant of certiorari of orders passed against the Petitioner by the authorities under the Orissa Land Encroachment Act and the orders passed in favour of Syed Ahmed Ali (O. P. No. 6) for grant of lease to him, who is the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982.

O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982 is an application for quashing the decision in H. R. C. Appeal No. 57 of 1974 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur, granting eviction of the tenant.

As the matters are inter-linked and the result of O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982 would depend upon the outcome of the proceeding under the Prevention of. Land Encroachment Act, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. O.J.C. 1462/79: The Petitioner has alleged that he was in possession of 12 cents of land within the Berhampur Municipality in Mouza Bhapur. He constructed a house roof whereof was partly covered with tiles and partly with asbestos-sheet The house had a backyard and was situated on the embankment of Tania tank. After being in occupation for some time, he let out the premises to opposite party No. 6. He instituted a proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 6. Having lost in all the forums, he approached this Court in O.J.C. 1995 of 1975. This Court quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for disposal afresh by judgment dated 5-7-1977. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Berhampur, started a proceeding under the Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (Land Encroachment Case No. 92 of 1973) for eviction of the Petitioner from one cent of land. Order of eviction was passed on 16-8-1973. Though the Petitioner lost in appeal, he succeeded in revision. The revisional authority accepted his contention that notice as required by the provisions of the O.P.L.E. Act had not been served arid his other contentions had not been considered. So, it remitted the matter to the original authority for hearing. The Petitioner specifically raised two contentions, namely, (1) the land had not been properly described and, (2) the Municipality to whom the land belonged had not been made a party. It appears from the order dated 10-10-1975 that the Tahsildar issued notice to the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality to produce the records on the basis whereof the encroachment case had been instituted. During the pendency of the proceeding, Syed Ahmed Ali (Petitioner in O.J.C. 1311/82) made a motion to the Tahsildar for settlement of the land with him as he was a landless person. At one stage the Tahsildar directed that a joint verification be made by the Tahsil Amin and the Municipal Amin to ascertain the correctness of the assertions made by the Petitioner. It is also seen that the Petitioner then alleged that he was paying rent to the Revenue Department as well as to the Municipality. The Tahsildar, however, by order dated 26-7 -1976 dropped the proceeding so far as the Petitioner was concerned on the ground that he was not in occupation of the revenue land as per the sketch map. He further found that there had been encroachment of small parcel of land belonging to the Revenue Department by holders of stalls on municipal land and treated opposite party No. 6 as an independent encroacher and directed that the said opposite party might apply for annual temporary lease. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dropping the proceeding, carried an appeal to the Subdivisional Officer. By order as per Annexure-5, his appeal was dismissed. He was also unsuccessful before the revisional authority, vide the revisional decision in Annexure-6. He moved the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also dismissed his revision, vide Annexure-7.

3. In the House Rent Control proceeding it has been found that opposite party No. 6 was a tenant in respect of the premises and the appellate authority, has direc