Disposed

The Dist. Centre Owners Association v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Feb 2021WP(C)/5090/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition for allotment of land, noting that the petitioner had availed the alternative remedy via a pending appeal. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within two months and restrain eviction or demolition until an interim application is addressed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of pending Appeal No.1 of 2021 within two months; restrain eviction or demolition of structure pending disposal of interim application.

The Dist. Centre Owners Association Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

WPC No.5090 of 2021

¶3

The District Centre Owner’s Association

¶4

… Petitioner - versus - State of Odisha & others … Opp. Parties

¶5

ORDER

¶6

23.02.2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Association to direct the opposite parties to allot the land i.e. Plot No.326(P) and 214(A) in Mouza-Chandrasekharpur measuring an area of 1200 square feet inasmuch as the same is an open space and utilizing the same by the local residents for their community purpose by raising a community centre building, pending disposal of the writ petition not to demolish the structure or evict the petitioner from the said land, which is in the possession of the Association.

¶7

2. According to the petitioner, the land belongs to the Bhubaneswar Development Authority but it being an open space, the members of the Association of the petitioner who are the local residents with the aid of local MLA LAD fund and also on the contribution of their members constructed a two storied building thereon and they are utilizing the said building by making different socio-cultural and charitable activities including the Government

¶8

¶9

sponsored programme. While the matter stood thus, an allegation was made by one Pradyumna Kumar Lenka that one Sarojkanta Mallick, who is working as Junior Assistant in BDA, has encroached upon a piece of Government land under the District Centre Scheme and made some unauthorized construction over it, which was enquired into and Amin reported that construction of a part of Plot No.326(P) has made unauthorisedly. Thereafter, UAP Case No.113 of 2017 was registered against Sarojkanta Mallick individually, who is representing the Association, for making unauthorized construction without permission. Pursuant to the same, as Sarojkanta Mallick could not establish any authority to possess the aforesaid land, order under Annexure-4 was passed to remove the unauthorized encroachment within seven days, failing which, the same shall be removed by the opposite party no.3 and the expenses shall be realized from him as revealed from Annexure-4.

¶10

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid construction belongs to the Society and at the expenses of the public money i.e. MLA LAD and contribution from members and also different Grama Panchayats and the society constructed the same wherein Sarojkanta Mallick is individually no way

¶11

¶12

involved. Therefore, the Society should have been given a chance before passing the aforesaid order in the said proceeding. The petitioner-society as such made a representation dated 16.11.2020 but without paying any heed to such representation, the opposite parties have demolished a part of the structure. Another representation dated 6.12.2020 so also an appeal vide Appeal No.1 of 2021 has been filed before opposite party no.1, which is still pending so also Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1822 of 2020 filed by the tenants therein has already directed to maintain status quo. While the matter stood thus, as the opposite party is taking steps to auction the land of the Society by demolishing the structure, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶13

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

5. As it appears an eviction order has already been passed in the aforesaid proceeding and the appeal is pending. Since the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of Appeal No.1 of 2021 of the petitioner within two months addressing the claim of the petitioner and also giving the petitioner due

¶15

¶16

opportunity of hearing. However, before disposal of the appeal, the appellate authority shall address the interim application made by the petitioner and till disposal of the said interim application, no eviction or demolition of the structure as existing therein as on date be made. Liberty is also given to the BDA, if they are aggrieved in any manner by this order, to approach this Court for modification of the same. So also this order should not be construed as liberty given to the opposite party no.2, if no interim order is passed in the appeal to demolish the structure, if any other order is there from any Court or Authority restraining them to do so.

¶17

Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

¶18

……..…………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶19

PKS

The Dist. Centre Owners Association v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Dist. Centre Owners Association 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalatendu Si Vs State of Odisha

Sabita Das Vs Malati Rout

Nibedita Patnaik Vs Sabdip Ku.Mishra

Nirmala Lala Vs Chandini Samal

Sakir Vs State of Odisha

Debasish Sen Vs State of Odisha