Remanded

Manas Hansda v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC11 May 2016WP(C)/2337/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court quashed a de-reservation order made without notice to villagers, directing the Collector to conduct a hearing and adjudicate the dispute regarding road construction deviations and land availability within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to take up De-reservation proceeding No. 10 of 2015 and dispose of it after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to quash the entire proceeding of De-reservation Case No. 10 of 2015 pending before the Tahasildar, Udala and further seeking fo r a direction to the opposite party No.2-Collector, Mayurbhanj to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who are villagers of Naraharipur.

It is contended that there was a kachha road to the village Naraharipur and vi llagers facing problem for communication with the block and the district. On the demand of the inhabitants of the locality authorities have taken step to approve a road to be constructed f rom Teldihudi to Naraharipur under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (P.M.G.S.Y.). As per t he scheme a Pallisava meeting was held. In the said meeting it has been decided how the road w ill be constructed. The persons who are going to be affected by construction of the road have also given consent to leave their land for development of the communication. Accordingly the a uthorities have approved the project and plan how the road will be constructed. In the project report it has been stated that the length of the road is 2.100Km. After completion of all for malities the construction work started. After completion of work to some extent the contractor tried to construct the road other than the approved plan and wanted to construct the road by deviating from the existing approved plan. He has extended the construction over a gochar land .

After knowing such fact of construction of the road by deviating the approved plan petitioner and other villagers met the Tahasildar and Sub-Collector, Udala to discuss abo ut it. The authorities have not taken any action for which the villagers have filed a represen tation before the Collector, Mayurbhanj on 30.12.2013 as well as on 27.1.2014 and also approac hed this Court in W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 21021 of 2014 with a prayer to direct the authorities to c onstruct the road as per the approved plan. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.11.20 14 with a direction to the Collector to act on the representation field by the petitioner, if there is no impediment in law, to ensure completion of the above road in accordance with the a pproved project plan. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the Collector, Mayurbhanj has no t taken any action on the representation of the villagers.

While the matter stood thus a notice was published on 23.11.2015 in De-reserva tion Case No. 10 of 2015 inviting objection from the public relating to de-reservation of the gochar land vide Plot No. 236/1 and 316/1 to patit land for construction of said village road. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice villagers have submitted objection on 21.12.2015 before the Tahasildar, Udala for de-reservation of the gochar land. In the said objection villagers have categorically stated that there is no surplus gochar land available. The Tahasildar, Udala wit hout hearing the objection of the petitioner as well as the villagers and without making any e nquiry whatsoever sent the record to the Sub-Collector for de-reservation of the land who has no jurisdiction to take decision as per the statute. Hence the present writ petition. A counte r affidavit filed by opposite party No.3 admitting the facts regarding submission of records t o Sub-Collector for necessary approval and orders.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove paragraphs, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to opposite party No.2-Collector, Mayurbhanj to take up the De-rese rvation proceeding No. 10 of 2015 and dispose of the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties regarding deviation of the approved plan and non-availability of surplus land. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of productio n of the certified copy of the order.

Manas Hansda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Hansda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pabitra Ku Behera Vs State of Orissa

Dileswar Bhoi Vs State of Orissa

Kishore Ch.Behera Vs State and Ors.

Ex.Eng.Ganjam Elect. Vs Lingaraj

Utkal Port and D.W.U. Vs Presiding Officer

Bana Kehari Vs Comnr,Endownment