Eviction proceedings initiated under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act in urban areas are without jurisdiction; the Odisha Public Premises Act governs such matters.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, ACJ.

This intra-court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 24422 of 2013, by which the learned Single Judge, while declining to quash the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the Tahasildar, Kamakhyanagar, as well as the subsequent orders passed by the appellate authority under Section 12 and the revisional authority under (2) of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short “OPLE Act”), which were respectively marked as Annexure- 3, Annexure-5 and Annexure-8 to the said writ petition, dismissed the writ petition.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the appellant is in occupation of an area measuring A0.10 dec. out of A 20.75 dec. in the Kisam Gharabari appertaining to Plot No. 2366 under Khata No. 549 in Mouza-Alatuma in the district of Dhenkanal (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property), which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Kamakhyanagar Notified Area Council (hereinafter referred to as “NAC”), and has been using the same as his only residential house since the time of his forefathers.

2.1 While the appellant was continuing in peaceful possession of the disputed property, the Tahasildar, Kamakhyanagar-respondent no. 5 initiated Encroachment Case No.198/2012-13 under the provisions of the OPLE Act and issued notices to the appellant alleging unauthorized occupation of the disputed property. Challenging such show cause notice, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 18027 of 2012, which was disposed of on 25.09.2012 directing the appellant to file his reply to the show cause, besides directing to maintain status quo till disposal of the eviction case.

2.2 In compliance to the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18027 of 2012, the appellant filed his reply to the notice of show cause, but the Tahasildar-respondent no. 5 passed an order on 01.02.2013 directing for his eviction from the disputed property. Challenging such order, the appellant preferred an appeal, as provided under Section 12 of the OPLE Act, but the same was dismissed on 11.09.2013. The appellant, thereafter, filed revision as provided under (2) of the OPLE Act, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2013.

2.3 The appellant challenged the orders passed by the Tahasildar, the appellate authority and also the revisional authority by filing W.P.(C) No. 24422 of 2013. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 21.10.2016 dismissed the writ petition, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Tahasildar as well as the appellate authority and revisional authority. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant urged before this Court that the proceeding which was initiated under Section OPLE Act for eviction of the appellant is without jurisdiction and as such the subsequent orders passed by the appellate authority, revisional authority and also by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents contended that the order passed by the Tahasildar, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, revisional authority and also the learned Single Judge, is well justified and does not call for interference by this Court at this stage.

5. This Court heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate app