Disposed

Sannkar Kanar v. the State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Aug 2020WP(C)/15388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding land utilized as a burial ground for over 50 years but recorded as agricultural land, the court disposed of the writ petition without deciding on merits, granting liberty for the petitioner to file a representation before the Collector to examine the land's actual utilization.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar to examine the plea regarding the land's utilization as a burial ground.

Sannkar Kanar Vs the State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 15388 of 2020

¶2

14.08.2020 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

¶3

Heard Ms. S. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶4

The petitioner, being a founder member of Seva Group which is a social organization registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, has filed this public interest litigation seeking direction to the opposite parties to delete the schedule property from the Record of Right (RoR) of opposite party no.5 and record in Government khata under kissam-“smasan” (cremation ground/burial ground), and further seeks for direction to opposite party no.5 not to obstruct construction to be done by the petitioner over the schedule property for the benefit of the public at large along with direction to the opposite parties to permit him to develop the schedule property to provide other facilities to make it full fledge burial ground.

¶5

The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the land in question situated over plot no.857, khata no.05 of Mouza-Balaguda measuring an area Ac.090 decimals out of Ac.8.70 decimals under Tahasil-Barbil in the district of Keonjhar has been recorded as Taila-II. But the said land is being utilized by the local inhabitants as a cremation ground. As the Record of Right of the land in question has not been changed, the same was allotted by the State Government in favour of opposite party no.5. The schedule land being located at river bank of Karrow near Arya Iron

¶6

¶7

& Steel Company on the way to Bolani (SAIL Mines), the dead bodies from KIW, Bolani and Barbil are being cremated over the said land for more than 50 years with the knowledge of the opposite parties. But all on a sudden, opposite party no.5 on the pretext of grant of lease, acquired the entire land for the purpose other than the purpose of the land utilized. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayer.

¶8

Ms. S. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the land has been recorded as kissam ‘Taila-II’, but the same was permitted by the competent authority to utilize the said land as ‘Smasan’ (burial ground/cremation ground) and, as such, more than 50 years the said land has been utilized as ‘Smasan’. But all on a sudden, opposite party no.5 has been allotted the said land by the State, consequentially in the name of improvement of such land, the characteristic of the ‘Smasan’ is going to destroy, thereby, there would be no other locality to have such ground. More so the local people have developed the ‘Smasan’ to permanent structure and also trying to develop the same by making some sitting arrangements and other infrastructural developments. In view of such position, it is contended that the schedule land should be deleted from the record of right of opposite party no.5 and should be recorded in the name of ‘Smasan’ (burial ground/cremation ground).

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since the schedule of land stands in the

¶10

¶11

name of kissam ‘Taila-II’ vide Annexure-2, unless the kissam of the land is changed by following due procedure of law, the same cannot be considered to be a ‘Smasan’ even though the same has been utilized in the said purpose. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority for recording the said land in Govt. khata as a ‘Smasan’ (burial ground/cremation ground). Instead of moving such authority, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court by filing this writ petition, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶12

In course of hearing, Ms. S. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the land in question stands in the name of kissam-Taila-II and, as such, kissam of the said land has not been changed. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition may be disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation ventilating the grievance before the Collector, Keonjhar which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, but, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar-opposite party no.2 within two weeks. In the event such application is filed, opposite party no.2 shall examine the plea advance by the petitioner in the writ petition itself and take necessary steps in accordance with

¶14

¶15

law keeping in view the utilization of schedule land as “smasan” and in the event he comes to a finding that actually the land in question is utilized as “smasan”, the same should be recorded accordingly. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation.

¶16

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court’s official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶17

…………….…………… (Mohammad Rafiq)

¶18

Chief Justice

¶19

Alok/Ashok

¶20

…………….…………… (Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

Sannkar Kanar v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannkar Kanar v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Prasad Mahakur Vs State of Odisha

Tirthananda Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Abani Kumar Gaya Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store Vs Canara Bank,Regional Office

Bibhu Prasad Patra Vs the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Parbati Sandibigraha Vs State of Odisha