The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation for obstruction due to road renovation. The court held that the allegations were generalized and prayers non-specific, making the matter unsuitable for determination via writ jurisdiction.
Application dismissed with no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO. 5240 OF 2003
07. 04.11.2016 This writ application under article 226 of the Constitution ha
s been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation to the petitioner
s for causing obstruction as regards damage to their houses as well as for the ingress and egr
ess to their houses by way of dumping of earth in the space.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocat
e.
In the petition allegations have been leveled that in course of renovation of
Cuttack-Chandabali road via Salipur, on account of unauthorized, illegal and forcible action o
f hooligans / goondas and also that of the contractor (opposite party no. 7), the houses of t
he petitioners developed some cracks and they also caused obstructions to the petitioners to h
ave entry to their houses.
It is further stated that in the matter, PIL having been filed vide W.P.(C) N
o. 6587 of 2002, was pending at the time of filing of this writ application which has by now b
een disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since long, there remains no
such obstruction and by order of this Court, the authority have immediately acted in the direc
tion of redressing the grievance of the petitioners.
Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in view of the situation w
hich prevails at the place since long, the writ application does no more survive for considera
tion. He next submits that when in so far as the claim of compensation is concerned not only t
hat it is required to be ascertained whether any such damage had been caused to the houses of
the petitioners and inconvenience of having proper ingress and egress to their houses and if s
o its extent but also then the quantum of damage if any thereby is required to be found out on
the basis of evidence. Lastly, in accordance with above, compensation for each of the petitio
ner has to be determined. Such exercises according to him are not permissible to be taken up w
ithin the scope of the present application in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article -226 of the Constitution.
On going through the averments made in the petition, those are found to have b
een made in a generalized manner right from the beginning till end and the prayer is also not
that specific. Therefore, the submission of learned Addl. Government Advocate merits acceptanc
e.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ application stands dismissed. No order as t
o cost.
D. Dash, J.
Narayan
= 2 =
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a maintenance award can be made in a writ petition Article 226 when allegations are generalized and prayers are not specific.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite Parties
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court