The High Court bench dismissed the Civil Monetary Petition challenging the rejection of stay in an injunction suit over land intended for a broad gauge railway link, upholding the Appellate Court's finding that Government land cannot be enjoined without compensation.
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.
CMP No. 2 of 2021
2
continued to pay rent to the Government. While the matter stood thus, said Dasarathi Mohanta purchased the suit land vide RSD No.7125 dated 23rd October, 1970 and continued to possess the same. After his death, the Petitioners are in peaceful possession over the suit land. While the matter stood thus, the Defendant-Opposite Party No.1 started stacking materials over the suit land forcibly. When it is objected, he disclosed that the East Coast Railways has undertaken the project for construction of B.G. railway link between Angul to Duburi-Sukinda Road on the aforesaid land. As such, the Petitioners finding no other alternative, filed the suit for the aforesaid relief and also an application for interim direction.
5.1 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur Road on consideration of materials, vide his order dated 10th January, 2020, allowed the said I.A. and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the case land and not to change the nature and character of the suit land, till disposal of the suit. Assailing the same, the Opposite Party No.1-East Coast Railways filed FAO No.4 of 2020 and the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed.
5.2 Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that although learned appellate Court found a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners, but held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the East Coast Railways. On the said finding, he reversed the order under Annexure-4.
5.3 Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners
3
submits that initially the East Coast Railways was not a party to the suit. But, subsequently, on filing of the petition for intervention, he was impleaded as Defendant No.2 to the suit. The Petitioners are all along in possession over the suit land from the time of their predecessor. They have right, title and interest over the suit land. The land has never been acquired following due procedure of law. As such, the East Coast Railways cannot forcibly undertake construction of the Railway link over the suit land that too without acquiring the same. Hence, the Petitioners have balance of convenience in their favour and they will suffer irreparable loss unless order under Annexure-5 is set aside and status quo in respect of the suit property is maintained.
4
is contended by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners that after 1930, no settlement of land have been undertaken in the said locality, but it appears that the suit land is in possession of the Government and recorded as ‘Anabadi’ under kissam ‘Jungle’. Be that as it may, if the Petitioners succeed in establishing their right, title and interest in a properly constituted suit, they may get compensation for acquisition of the land in question. But, that does not entitle them to an order of injunction, more particularly in view of the fact that an infrastructure project has been undertaken for construction of a B.G. railway link between Angul- DuburiSukinda Road. Taking into consideration the same, learned Appellate Court by a reasoned order reversed the order passed under Annexure-4. The impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed in the spirit of Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
7.1 Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
bct
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the interim injunction granted to the petitioners despite prima facie title.
Whether the Government acquirement process entitles the petitioners to a stay of injunction in the face of an infrastructure project.
Whether the learned Respondent Justice ought to have intervened with the impugned order dismissing the interim application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dasarathi Mohanta's Lrs
East Coast Railways
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
