JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Sri Hota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. 2. In filing this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayer : “(a) Issue notice to the Opp. Parties as to why the petitioner’s application as at Annexure-12 shall not be considered and the Encroachment Case no. 187/92 impugned in this writ application, shall not be quashed/dropped/closed on the face of the pending application for settlement (Annexure-12); And (b) In the event of un-satisfactory reply from the Opp. Parties, to issue appropriate and suitable writs/directions/orders to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner’s application in prescribed Form-‘1’ along with an affidavit in Form. ‘E’ for settlement of Land (as at Annexure-12) already submitted to the Tahasildar on 20.09.1997 by registered post and lying pending till today, by taking recourses to the provisions of O.P.L.E. Act read with the Orissa Act of 10 of 1988 and also to quash/close/drop the impugned Encroachment Case no. 187 of 1992.” 3. Referring to the series of documents appended to the Encroachment proceeding vide Encroachment Case No. 187/92, Sri Hota, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent authority was busy in imposing penalty on the petitioner finding him as an encroacher in the above proceeding for over a decade and the petitioner was also going on depositing the penalty imposed by the competent authority regularly. Referring to the documents vide Annexure-12, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for pendency of the proceeding under the O.P.L.E Act involving Encroachment Case No. 187/92, the petitioner submitted an application for settlement of the disputed land. Even though the application was received by the competent authority but no result involving the same have come for a long time and finding no result on the application, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition. 4. Sri Hota, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the OPLE proceeding was pending, the petitioner has rightly approached for settlement of the land under Annexure-12 and the competent authority was thus duty bound to consider the application. In the circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for issuing a mandamus to the competent authority for considering the application vide Annexure-12 in the pending OPLE proceeding. 5. In the circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for issuing a mandamus to the competent authority for considering the application vide Annexure-12 in the pending OPLE proceeding. 5. Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, referring to the documents submitted that looking to the series of payments of fine by the petitioner, the proceeding vide Encroachment Case No. 187/92 is a closed proceeding, but however, considering that in spite of repeated notice the petitioner did not vacate the land, the authority was going on imposing penalty on the petitioner and for deposit of penalty by the petitioner, it appears, the petitioner has admitted himself to be an encroacher. It is under these premises, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is no such proceeding pending for consideration, where the application for settlement of disputed land can be considered. 6. In the above premises, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since there is no proceeding pending under the O.P.L.E Act and as the notice issued vide Annexure-11 is simply a notice for vacating the land, the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Hearing the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner has already faced an Encroachment proceeding vide Encroachment Case No.187/92. From the series of documents filed by the petitioner, it appears, the proceeding is already concluded and as the petitioner has continuously been held to be an encroacher, the authority went on imposing penalty on the petitioner. For deposit of the penalty by the petitioner, there remains no doubt that the petitioner has accepted the final order of the OPLE authority involving the Encroachment Case No. 187/92 treating himself as an encroacher. It appears, there is no further challenge to the order passed in the Encroachment Case No. 187/92. For the documents appended herein and for the response in the counter affidavit, this Court finds, the proceeding vide Encroachment Case No. 187/92 is a closed proceeding and the submission of Sri K.K. Mishra in this regard has force. 8. It appears, there is no further challenge to the order passed in the Encroachment Case No. 187/92. For the documents appended herein and for the response in the counter affidavit, this Court finds, the proceeding vide Encroachment Case No. 187/92 is a closed proceeding and the submission of Sri K.K. Mishra in this regard has force. 8. Now coming to decide whether the claim for settlement of the land can be considered even after disposal of the encroachment proceeding, this Court finds, the provision contained in Section 8(A) of the O.P.L.E Act reads as follows: “[8-A. Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years – (1) Where in the course of any proceeding instituted under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 against any person unauthorisedly occupying any land it is proved by such person that he has been in actual, continuous and undisputed occupation of the land for more than thirty years by the date of institution of the proceeding, the Tahasildar shall refer the case to the Sub-divisional Officer. (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-sec. (1) the Sub-divisional Officer shall give the Department of the State Government (other than the Revenue Department) to which the land belongs, an opportunity to show cause against the settlement of the land and may make such further enquiry as he deems necessary. (3) If after making such enquiry the Sub-divisional Officer is satisfied that such person has been in such occupation of the land as aforesaid he may by order, settle the land with him and every such settlement shall be subject to such conditions, regarding assessment and payment of rent (including arrears of rent) as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.] 9. Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an application for settlement of the land has to be made during pendency of the proceeding under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 of the O.P.L.E Act. As this Court finds, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 of the Act, the application for settlement of the land is not entertainable. 10. As this Court finds, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 of the Act, the application for settlement of the land is not entertainable. 10. However, in the event a fresh proceeding under the OPLE Act is initiated against the petitioner, it may be open to him to move an application for settlement of the land for consideration of the competent authority under the OPLE Act or in the alternate if the petitioner is a landless persons and he is still in occupation of the disputed land and the disputed land is otherwise settleable, it will be open to the petitioner to approach under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act. 11. Under the circumstance, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No cost.