Petitioners challenged road construction on their land via W.P.(C) No. 9687 of 2006. The court refused to entertain the petition due to disputed facts, directing them to the proper forum, and disposed of the writ.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to file appropriate proceeding before the proper forum.
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. 9687 of 2006
08. 04.02.2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“The petitioners, therefore, most humbly and respectfully pray that the Honourable High Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the opp.parties to show cause, more particularly, opp.parties 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, as to why they shall not be directed not to make the road encroaching any portion of the land of the petitioner as has been demarcated by the Tahasildar, Angul, in Khata No.63 of village Hamabira, Plot Nos.880, 884 and 1410 and as to why they shall not be directed to make good the loss caused to the petitioners by lifting of earth and uprooting of trees from their land; if the opp.parties fail to show cause or showed insufficient cause, the Hon’ble Court may further be graciously pleased, upon hearing the parties, to allow this writ petition, directing the opposite parties, by issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus not to construct the road on any portion of the land of the petitioners in Plot Nos.880, 884 and 1410 in Khata No.63 of village Hamabira and pay suitable damages/compensation to them for the loss caused to them and/or may pass any other order/orders as may deem just and expedient in the ends of justice;”
The factual submission made by learned counsel petitioner is disputed by learned counsel for the opposite parties by filing counter affidavit.
In view of the disputed question of facts, it will not be proper to entertain the writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioners to file appropriate proceeding before the proper forum for redressal of their grievance.
-2-
SKJ
The writ petition is disposed of. All connected Misc. Cases/I.A. are disposed of accordingly.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be entertained given the existence of disputed questions of fact.
Petitioners
Opposite Parties 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
K.S. Jhaveri
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
