The court affirmed the principle that a prior court order remains enforceable, mandating government compliance in land allotment cases despite subsequent policy changes.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is communication dated 15th October, 2015, whereby the administration informed his client that the Government had been pleased to decide, due to non-availability of land, monetary grant in lieu of land will be given to landless Jawans and landless ex- service men, who have served in the forward areas during 26th October, 1962 to 31st January, 1964. He submits, his client served at the front in the period.

2. He draws attention to order dated 18th September, 2012 made by coordinate Bench in his client’s earlier writ petition WP(C) no.3422 of 2006. Reproduced below are two paragraphs from said order.

“xx xx xx Now Mr. Behera submits that the Tahasildar, Jatani, is taking steps for allotment of another land available within Jatani Tahasil in favour of the petitioner.

Considering the said submissions, we direct that the entire process of allotment of land in favour of the petitioner shall be completed within a period of three months from today. Personal appearance of Mr. Behera is dispensed with.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly xx xx xx”.

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Das points out, counter has been filed. He draws attention to paragraph 8 in the counter and demonstrates that land was not given due to lack of identification, not lack of availability.

3. Mr. Das submits further, his client had made query under Right to Information Act, 2005. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Additional Tahasildar, Jatni answered the queries on communication dated 15^th September, 2021, disclosed by his client’s additional affidavit dated 20^th September, 2021. The information obtained by petitioner is reproduced below.

“With reference to your RTI Application dated 26.07.2021 I am to say that khata No.363, Plot No.129, area Ac 34.935 dec., Kissam-Puratanpatita in which 6 numbers of residential houses constructed over approximate area Ac.2.200 dec., some part of this plot used for playground and some portion of land growing forest and remaining area of the plot is vacate

Accordingly to point No-2 Yet no government project has been sanctioned.

Accordingly to point No-3

This is for your kind information.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. On 18^th November, 2022, in our order we had made observations in context of said order dated 18^th September, 2012. Paragraphs 5 and 6 from our order is reproduced below.

“5. The administration through the Tahasildar, Jatani had submitted steps were being taken for allotment of another land available within Jatani Tahasil, in favour of petitioner. Thus there was direction for the entire process of allotment of land in favour of petitioner to be completed. The order has become final. State does not have room to maneuver.

6. List on 28^th November, 2022.”

5. Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Drawing attention to Resolution no.7390 dated 19^th February, 2014, he points out, this resolution taken by the Home Department and published by authority in Odisha Gazette Extraordinary on 10^th March, 2014 was basis for impugned communication dated 15^th October, 2015. Clause 5 is applicable to petitioner. Sub-clause (ix) under the clause makes all pending cases seeking agricultural land to be disposed of in accordance with the resolution.

6. He relies on order made by the first Division Bench of this Court in Pratima Mohanty V. State of Odisha , reported in 2021 (Supp.) OLR 766, paragraph 22, reproduced below.

“22. Indeed with the scarcity of land available for allotment, the Government is constrained to re