Latest news with #OrissaPreventionofLandEncroachment
Time of India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Only civil courts can try land ownership or title disputes: Odisha HC
CUTTACK : In a significant ruling, the Orissa high court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes involving ownership or title to land, emphasising that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The vacation bench of Justice S K Panigrahi issued the order on May 30, setting aside an eviction order passed by the tehsildar of Dhamnagar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972. The case pertains to Dinabandhu Behera, who challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the state had erroneously recorded the disputed land in its name during the hal settlement. Behera claimed that his father had legally come into possession of the property after an 'ekpadia' (a written recognition) was issued by the ex-intermediary post-estate abolition. His father's name was subsequently recorded in the tenant ledger and rent was regularly paid to the govt. Upon his death, Behera came into possession of the land. But, despite these records, the tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings treating Behera as an encroacher. The sub-collector and collector of Bhadrak later upheld the eviction order. The HC, while setting aside all these orders, stated that the existence of a bona fide dispute over ownership and title renders summary eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act is inappropriate. "The revenue authorities, who conduct summary procedures, are not competent to adjudicate such complex disputes of title," Justice Panigrahi observed. The court further noted that Behera had already approached the civil judge, junior division, Dhamnagar, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land. He had also prayed for a declaration that the encroachment proceedings were unsustainable, given the pending civil suit. Reaffirming the supremacy of civil courts in deciding title-related matters, the court ruled that "summary proceedings by revenue authorities cannot constitute the proper forum for adjudication where a bona fide dispute exists over title".
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Only civil courts can try land ownership or title disputes
1 2 Cuttack: In a significant ruling, the Orissa high court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes involving ownership or title to land, emphasising that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The vacation bench of Justice S K Panigrahi issued the order on May 30, setting aside an eviction order passed by the tehsildar of Dhamnagar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972. The case pertains to Dinabandhu Behera, who challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the state had erroneously recorded the disputed land in its name during the hal settlement. Behera claimed that his father had legally come into possession of the property after an 'ekpadia' (a written recognition) was issued by the ex-intermediary post-estate abolition. His father's name was subsequently recorded in the tenant ledger and rent was regularly paid to the govt. Upon his death, Behera came into possession of the land. But, despite these records, the tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings treating Behera as an encroacher. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Walgreens Keeps Quiet About This '9 Pills for $7' Generic Cialis Deal Friday Plans Get Offer Undo The sub-collector and collector of Bhadrak later upheld the eviction order. The HC, while setting aside all these orders, stated that the existence of a bona fide dispute over ownership and title renders summary eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act is inappropriate. "The revenue authorities, who conduct summary procedures, are not competent to adjudicate such complex disputes of title," Justice Panigrahi observed. The court further noted that Behera had already approached the civil judge, junior division, Dhamnagar, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land. He had also prayed for a declaration that the encroachment proceedings were unsustainable, given the pending civil suit. Reaffirming the supremacy of civil courts in deciding title-related matters, the court ruled that "summary proceedings by revenue authorities cannot constitute the proper forum for adjudication where a bona fide dispute exists over title".
