Dismissed

Pragyan Priyadarsini Barik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Jul 2021WP(C)/7839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a PIL questioning the erection of a Gram Panchayat building on land earmarked for a school, the High Court upheld the Collector's balanced order finding the land suitable for both purposes, observing the land for the GP building was found resulting in dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding the Collector's order not erroneous.

Pragyan Priyadarsini Barik Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) PIL No.7839 of 2021

¶3

Pragyan Priyadarsini Barik and others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. L. Patel, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. T. K. Patnaik, ASC for State

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

09.07.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶14

This is a second round of litigation by one section of the villagers at Bada Barchikayan Gram Panchayat, Bonth Block, Bhadrak District questioning the decision to erect a Gram Panchayat (GP) building, which according to them is on a land earmarked for a school.

¶15

This Court had directed, by an order dated 23^rd November, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.23788 of 2020, the Collector, Bhadrak to examine the Petitioners’ representation and dispose it of in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶16

Thereafter, the Collector has held those hearings and passed the impugned order dated 13^th January 2021, which is now challenged in the present writ petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

The Collector has called for a joint inquiry report of the BDO, Tahasildar and BEO, Bonth and noticed that there have been claims also by the general public of the same GP for construction of the GP building over Plot No.976 in Khata 545 under Mouza Bada Barchikayan. It is noticed that there is sufficient land behind the existing location of the school as well as the possibility of adding floors to the existing building for upgrading the school. The land has been found suitable for construction of a GP building.

¶19

It appears to the Court that the Collector has adopted a balanced approach and his conclusion that there can be both an expansion of the existing school as well as a GP building cannot be said to be erroneous either in fact or in law. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶22

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶23

Chief Justice

¶24

(Savitri Ratho)

¶25

Judge

¶26

M. Panda

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Pragyan Priyadarsini Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragyan Priyadarsini Barik 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

Pranabandhu Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Subrat Kumar Behura Vs Union of India

Goura Charan Praharaj Vs Secretary, Panchayatiraj Dept.

Baburam Sutar Vs Jasoda Samal

Raja Kishore Sahoo Vs Union of India

Mahesh Ch.Das Vs State