Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.130 of 2009 Chitrasen Karami …. Petitioner(s) Mr.A.Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Orissa & Ors. …. Opp.Party(s) Mr.S.Mishra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH Order No. ORDER 05.12.2022 4. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the revisional order. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reference to sub-paragrapgh-3 of the impugned order at page 16 of the brief submitted that there is no doubt petitioner did not file any document to establish his economic status. However, considering this situation, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner through sub-paragraph-3 desired to ask the Tahasildar, Bheden to report regarding the then economic status of the petitioner. It is in the above circumstance, Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner should have obtained such report and then proceeded in disposing the matter. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State however defends the impugned order. Reading sub- paragaph-3 of the impugned order, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel reading together with observation of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner in the last but one paragraph submits in taking the impugned decision, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner has involved the Collector’s view. // 2 // Page 2 of 3 Mr.Mishra contends for there is support to the finding of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner such order need not be interfered with. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the nature of proceeding involved, if the land involved therein is to be settled in favour of the petitioner or not? There are materials available showing petitioner is in occupation of the land. Not only that through Annexue-3 series, it has been established that for a quite long period petitioner went on depositing the land revenue and for some period it appears, petitioner deposited penalty. 5. Reading the impugned order, while keeping in view the claim and objection of the respective counsel, this Court finds Revenue Divisional Commissioner has a clear view in calling for a report from the Tahasildar, Bheden to find the ec9nomic status. No doubt, there is recording that the petitioner is an outsider. It itself establish petitioner is a landless in the area. Further, there is also finding petitioner is an encroacher involving the land described therein, for the requirement of law under the O.P.L.E. Act, this Court finds prime contingency a party should not be in possession of any land in the locality also needs to establish if he is financially weak. One of the measure ground if not ascertained, there should not be disposal of revision as disposal of revision will ultimately take away the claim of the party involved therein. 6. In the circumstance, this Court interferes in the impugned order at Annexure-2 sets aside the same. However, for there is necessity of re-hearing of the Encroachment Revision No.17 of 2005 , this Court remits the matter to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (ND), Sambalpur for re-disposal but only after obtaining the economic status involving the petitioner from the Tahasildar concerned. It may also be open to the petitioner, if so // 3 // Page 3 of 3 advised, to file his economic status report to establish his case. Let there be fresh disposal of the proceeding as per the direction made hereinabove. Petitioner is directed to bring a copy of this order to the notice of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner by appearing before him on 14.12.2022. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Biswanath Rath) Judge Sks