Disposed

Prasanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jun 2020WP(C)/9001/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the laying of a road under the PMGSY Scheme on the petitioner's land without acquisition, the High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to inquire into the matter and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar, Begunia to look into the matter expediently. Status quo maintained on Plot No.12/796 until a decision is taken.

Prasanta Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.9001 of 2020

¶2

02 03.06.2020

¶3

Heard Mr.Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶4

In the accompanying writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties who are laying road under PMGSY Scheme over the land of the petitioner without acquisition on payment of compensation.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a plot bearing No.12/796 comprising of area Ac.0.186 dec. in the status of Gharbari under Khata No.241/44 situated in Mouza Jemabantadei in Tahsil Begunia in the district of Khurda and he is in possession of the said property. After coming to know about the laying of a road under PMGSY Package No.OR-18-ADB-54 (RICP-2B-1) the petitioner submitted various representations to the concerned authorities on different dates, but nobody paid any heed to the same. It is the case of the petitioner that in case the road is diverted and laid through Plot No.11 then it would save the private plots of the petitioner i.e. Plot No.12/796. The Executive Engineer also requested the Tahsidlar to look into the matter and ensure laying of the road through Government land, but no steps are being taken.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the State Government nor any instrumentality of the State acquired the land of the petitioner which is of Gharbadi status and at no point of time the petitioner has given any consent to use his land for any purpose including the purpose of the road.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction would be issued to the concerned Tahsildar, Begunia to look in to the matter in the light of Annexure-4, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed.

¶9

¶10

Learned Additional Standing Counsel however has no serious objection to that course of action.

¶11

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the petitioner and without delving into the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tahasildar, Begunia to look into the matter in the light of Annexure-4 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months after lifting of lock down period due to COVID-19.

¶12

Till a decision is taken by the Tahsildar, Begunia, status quo as on today with regard to Plot No.12/796, Khata No.241/44 of Mouza Jemabantadei of Begunia Tahsil in the district of Khurda shall be maintained.

P.Patnaik,J

Prasanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

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

Satyam Dora @ Jitu Vs State of Odisha

Sagar Kishan Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Jyoti Ranjan Pani Vs Agrawal Automobiles Authorised Sub Dealer of Bajaj Auto Two Wheelers

Nirupama Ghosh @ Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Bhagirathi Das Vs State of Odisha