Member Secy,Oslsa, v. State And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.11369 of 2012 Member Secretary, OSLSA ....

Petitioner Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

ORDER

16.11.2022 Order No.

07.

1. Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Maneswar reads as under:

"4. That it is respectfully submitted that the plot no.2006 of Mouza-Parmanpur still exists as a full plot and has not been fragmented. It is pertinent to mention here that though the beneficiaries mentioned above were granted with the ceiling surplus land, yet during settlement operation, it was the duty of those persons to get the lands recorded in their favour after obtaining necessary permission from the Consolidation Authorities, having not done so, the beneficiaries failed in their statutory obligation to get the ROR corrected in their favour and as such the Tahasildar, has no role to play in this regard. It is pertinent to mention here that the beneficiaries having failed in their attempt to get the ROR corrected at the appropriate stage, cannot claim the same before this Hon'ble Court. On the contrary, appropriate forum is available under law to ventilate their grievance, if any, to get the lands

corrected in their favour, hence the writ petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed."

2. There is a separate report submitted by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Sambalpur enclosing the report of the BDO, Maneswar to the effect that all four persons named in the news article on the basis of which the present petition was registered, have in the meanwhile expired. The report sets out the names of all the legal representatives of the said four persons.

3. A direction is issued to DLSA, Sambalpur to assist the said LRs of the four persons in approaching the authorities concerned for registering the RoR in their names in accordance with law.

4. No further directions are called for at this stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. K. Guin