Allowed

Natabar Mallik v. Collector,Kendrapara

Orissa HC3 May 2016WP(C)/5246/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition contending that construction of a medical/conception sub-centre on Khata No. 1131, Plot No. 722 violated provisions for public utility land. The Court directed restrained construction on the disputed plot.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties restrained from raising construction for the medical/conception sub-centre on Plot No. 722 of the village in question.

04. 03.05.2016 The grievance of the petitioner is that Khata No. 1131, Plot N o. 722, Area Ac. 0.06 decimal of village Aragal, Dist. Kendrapara is a land meant for public u tility on which construction of medical/conception sub-centre is going on. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such land cannot be used for construction and the same is being carried on against the provisions of la w. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on communication dated 14 .8.2015 made by the Medical Officer I/c, CHC, Aul to the Chief District Medical Officer, Kendr apara filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and communication dated 26.8.2015 made by the T ahasildar, Aul to the Collector, Kendrapara, filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 3. Time was granted to learned Addl. Government Advocate to obtain instructions. He has today stated that he has received the following instructions in writing. To

With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to intimate you that CDMO, Kendrapara in his letter no. 6825 dt. 2.6.2015 has sent a proposal along with I .A. form for alienation of the following land schedule for construction of Sub-Centre in the v illage-Aragal under this Tahasil.

But later the CDMO, Kendrapara in his letter No. 1371 dt. 4.3. 2016 stated that the site proposed earlier suffers from objection of the local villagers. Hen ce the construction of the sub-Centre on the aforesaid land schedule is not possible.

As per revised proposal of the CDMO, the enquiry has been cond ucted by the RI concerned who reported that the proposed site is free from encroachment having road connectivity and it does not obstruct the drainage system. Further there is no valuable tree growth over the suit land. Hence, it is suitable for construction of the proposed sub-cen tre.

Now on conduct of enquiry it is found that the construction of the Sub-Centre is on progress over the Khata No. 1133, Plot No.2017 of village Aragal instead of Khata No.1131, Plot No. 722 of the same village. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action. Yours faithfully,

4. It has been stated that though construction was scheduled to be made on plot n o. 722, but subsequently on objection raised by the local villagers, land now selected for con struction of the medical/conception sub-centre in the village is to be made on plot no. 2017. As such, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that opposite parties shall not raise any construction for medical/conception sub-centre on plot no. 722 of the village in question. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Natabar Mallik v. Collector,Kendrapara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natabar Mallik v. Collector,Kendrapara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Maa Jagatjanini Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd,Bbsr Vs Agm and Ao,Bank of Baroda,Bbsr

National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Bhabani Malick Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Sephrd Vs State of Orissa

Ramesh Ku Baliarsingh Vs Ao,Bank of India,Bbsr

Haripriya Samant Vs Regional Manager-Cu