JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing the writ application, the petitioner-tenant challenges the order passed, vide Annexure-1 as well as the order, vide Annexure-2 involving H.R.C. Appeal involving an eviction proceeding at the instance of the O.P.1-owner. 2. Short background involved in the case is O.P.1 instituted H.R.C. Case No.3/86 involving the present petitioner and the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was the owner of H.S.Plot No.1104/3559 corresponding to M.S. Plot No.1611, over which the petitioner constructed some houses and the houses were let out to several persons including the present petitioner, the O.P. therein. On the premises that the present petitioner is a tenant under the O.P. and on such failure of payment of monthly rent for a particular period mentioned therein, the HRC proceeding was initiated seeking a direction from the court for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner on his appearance as the O.P. in the H.R.C. Case while denying the claim of the O.P.1, the petitioner therein objected the claim of the present O.P. being the owner of the property. It is on the other hand the present petitioner laid his case that the case land belongs to Government. On the basis of illegal occupation of a Government land, Encroachment Case No.436/79 for an area of Ac.0.45 in the share of Gharbari involving the petitioner was initiated and the proceeding was pending at that point of time. However, considering the claim and rival claim involved therein and the materials available at the relevant time, the trial court decided the H.R.C. Case No.3/86, vide Annexure-1 passing an order of eviction involving the present petitioner and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the property. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner filed H.R.C. Appeal No.2/3 of 1992-94. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal thereby confirming the order of eviction passed by the trial court. 4. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri S.Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the alleged tenant in reiteration of the stand taken in the courts below by way of an application for additional evidence brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the present proceeding, the subsequent Encroachment Case was initiated involving the petitioner involving the very same land, vide Encroachment Case No.1678/2004. There has already been an order settling the disputed land in favour of the petitioner in the meantime. Sri Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that for the claim of the petitioner that he was the occupier of a Government land and therefore, clearly disputing the claim of the petitioner, further the claim of the O.P. also being deriving right over a Government land and for the development through the Encroachment Case for settlement of the Government land in favour of the petitioner involving the disputed land, the claim of the petitioner has been substantiated and Sri Ghosh as such prayed that this matter needs to be re-examined by the trial court taking into account the subsequent development involving the same land. 5. Sri Y.S.P. Babu, learned counsel for O.P.1 claiming to be the owner of the disputed land, on the other hand disputing the claim of the petitioner submitted that O.P.1 also claims right over the disputed land belonging to the State by virtue of adverse possession. Sri Babu also relied on a previous decree declaring the right of the petitioner over the property by virtue of a civil suit decree. Sri Babu though denied the claim of the petitioner as the owner of the land but however looking to the development through the Encroachment Case has no dispute in the matter is re-examined of the dispute taking into account the development taken place in the meantime. 6. Sri A.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for O.Ps.2 & 3 taking this Court to the observation and finding arrived at by the trial court and the confirmation of the finding by the appellate court however though did not dispute the development taken place in the meantime settling the land in favour of the petitioner by way of disposal of the encroachment proceeding but for the confirmation of finding therein submitted that there is no scope for this Court to interfere in such orders. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the claim of the rival parties, particularly O.P.1, this Court finds, the petitioner had a clear claim that he was in occupation of the Government land, and therefore, seriously disputing the ownership claimed by O.P.1. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the claim of the rival parties, particularly O.P.1, this Court finds, the petitioner had a clear claim that he was in occupation of the Government land, and therefore, seriously disputing the ownership claimed by O.P.1. From perusal of the impugned orders, it appears, for the petitioner unable to satisfy his claim over the land of the State or settlement of his right through any process undertaken following due process of law, it appears, the trial court based on the materials produced by the O.P.1 therein decided the case and it is on the basis of materials available only the appellate authority confirmed the order of the trial court. It is at this stage, taking into consideration the subsequent development taking place during pendency of the writ application, this Court finds, admittedly the land belongs to Government and the petitioner was involved in an encroachment proceeding involving the very same disputed land in Encroachment Case No.1678/2004 and from the documents at Annexure-3, this Court finds, the petitioner is right in his approach submitting that the disputed land having been already settled in favour of the petitioner in disposal of the Encroachment Case as indicated herein above and involving Government and thereby on publication of corrected Khatian involving the disputed property, there is no dispute that the disputed land is already settled in favour of the petitioner. The Civil Court decree placed reliance by O.P.1 found to be not involving the present petitioner. Thus this Court observes that the decree involving any suit without involvement of the present petitioner is not binding as against the petitioner. 8. Under the circumstance and for the development taken place in the meantime, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute between the parties requires a fresh consideration taking into consideration the development taken place involving very same land in the meantime. As a consequence, this Court remits the matter back to the trial court for re-adjudication of the H.R.C. Case No.3/86 giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties to satisfy their case on the following issue. “Whether the settlement of land in favour of the petitioner in disposal of Encroachment Case No.1678/2004 has a bearing on the pending H.R.C. Case and if so, what would be the decision ?” 9. “Whether the settlement of land in favour of the petitioner in disposal of Encroachment Case No.1678/2004 has a bearing on the pending H.R.C. Case and if so, what would be the decision ?” 9. It is under the above circumstance, this Court interfering in both the impugned orders, vide Annexures-1 & 2 sets aside the both and remands the matter back to the House Rent Controller-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bargarh or the competent authority deciding such matters at present for fresh adjudication of the H.R.C. Case involved herein. This Court for the above direction also directs both the parties to appear before the court of competency along with a copy of this order on 5th March, 2018 and the court of competency is also directed to conclude the fresh hearing involving the H.R.C. Case No.3/86 within a period of three months taking into consideration the issue framed herein and giving opportunity of evidence as well as hearing to both sides. Status quo as on date involving the disputed property shall be maintained till final conclusion of the fresh proceeding by the competent authority. The writ application succeeds to the extent of an order of remand of the H.R.C. Case No.3/86 for its fresh adjudication. However, there is no order as to cost.