Disposed

Sudhansubala Mohanty v. the State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Feb 2021WP(C)/2468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding alleged encroachment of petitioner's stiliban land for Septage Treatment Plant construction. The Court directed the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without adhering to the due process of law.

Sudhansubala Mohanty Vs the State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2468 of 2021

¶3

Sudhansubala Mohanty … Petitioner - Versus -

¶4

The State of Odisha and others … Opp. Parties

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

11.02.2021 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment the land possessed by the Petitioner and not to change the nature and character of the said land by proceeding with the construction of Septage Treatment Plant therein, as the same is the stitiban land of the Petitioner.

¶8

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Opposite Parties have proceeded in establishment of a Garbage Dumping Yard/Septage Treatment Plant/Micro Composting Centre over the stitiban land of the Petitioner measuring an area of Ac.0.08 decimals out of total area of Ac.1.62 decimals appertaining to Hal Record of Right (R.O.R.) No.45, Hal Plot No.110 which corresponds to Sabik Khata No.23 and Sabik Plot

¶9

¶10

No.29/384 of Mouza-Madhipur, P.S.-Gop in the district of Puri in a illegal and arbitrary manner.

¶11

The aforesaid land originally recorded in the name of Ghana Gochhayat, S/o. Panchu Gochhayat and others. The said Ghana Gochhayat being a scheduled caste person, he after obtaining the permission of the Sub-Collector in Misc. Case No.105 of 1990 vide order dated 14.02.1992, sold the said land to one Jyotsnarani Jena, W/o. Kedarnath Jena vide Registered Sale Deed No.964 dated 09.10.1992. The said Jyotsnarani Jena was in peaceful possession of the said land from the date of her purchase and paying the rent. Jyotsnarani Jena thereafter sold the said land to the present Petitioner vide Sale Deed No.11501400216 dated 19.02.2014 and since the date of the purchase, the Petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said land having right, title and interest.

¶12

While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC in an illegal and arbitrary manner remove the trees, concrete pillars and barbed wires boundary fence from the said land and put a sign board therein for construction of a Garbage Dumping Yard/Septage Treatment Plant/Micro Composting on the said land. Since such action of the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch the Konark NAC has no legal right to interfere on such stitiban property of

¶13

¶14

the Petitioner, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as aforesaid.

¶15

It appears that a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC denying the fact that any damage was caused to the property of the Petitioner or the land as mentioned by the Petitioner to be her stitiban land has been encroached by Konark NAC for construction of the Septage Treatment Plant.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC and perused the averments taken in the petition so also counter affidavit filed.

¶17

Since there is denial by the Konark NAC that the Petitioner’s land is being encroached and any damaged caused to the property of the Petitioner and they have come out with a specific averment that no construction is made in the land of the Petitioner, which is disputed by the Petitioner, this Court disposes of this writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner in the aforesaid land without adhering to the due process of law, so also if any damage has been caused to the property of the Petitioner, the Petitioner may ventilate her grievance before the appropriate forum for compensation.

¶18

¶19

The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶20

………………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶21

Sudhansubala Mohanty v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhansubala Mohanty v. the 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

Qadiram Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Behera Vs Collector, Bhadrak

Pravati Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Khetrabasi Sethi Vs the State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ananda Nayak Vs State of Odisha