Disposed

Sunita Choudhary v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Aug 2022CMP/579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, without delving into merits, disposed of a civil miscellaneous petition relating to a Government land dispute. A direction was issued to maintain the status quo of the disputed land until the disposal of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

Status quo over Schedule-A land is maintained by the parties pending disposal of the suit; parties may use land for access to the main road.

Sunita Choudhary Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP No. 579 OF 2022

¶3

Sunita Choudhary and another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Devavrat Devesh, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 26.08.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioners in the CMP seek to assail the order dated

¶15

11^th February, 2022 (Annexure-8) passed by learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No.111 of 2021, whereby the appeal filed by the present Petitioners was dismissed confirming the order dated 11^th October, 2021 under Annexure-6 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.94 of 2021 (arising out of C.S. No.166 of 2011) dismissing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by them.

¶16

The dispute relates to patch of Government land, more fully, described in the Schedule-A of the plaint, which is as under:

¶17

“SCHEDULE-A

¶18

Khata No.389, Hal Plot No.615, Area Ac0.022 decimals, 30ft X 30ft out of total area Ac 1.23 decimal, Mouza- Gohala, PS- Balianta, Dist. Khurda, bounded by West-Public Road, East- Schedule-B land (belongs to plaintiff), North-Part of Plot No-615, South-part of Plot no.624 (belongs to vendor of plaintiff)” (for short ‘the Schedule-A land’).

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Taking into consideration the dispute involved in the matter, this Court vide order dated 23^rd August, 2022 directed learned State Counsel to produce the R.O.R. in respect of Khata No.389 of mouza Gohala under Balianta Tahasil in the district of Khurda.

¶22

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel on instruction from the Tahasildar, Balianta submits that no construction over Schedule-A land is proposed to be made in near future. Hence, the Petitioners have no cause of action to file application for injunction. He, however, submits that the Petitioners may use Schedule-A land as access to the main road from Schedule-B land till disposal of the suit with a condition that, they shall not raise any construction over the said land or change the nature and character of the same.

¶23

In view of the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, this Court without delving into the merits of the case of the Petitioners, disposes of the CMP with a direction that status quo over Schedule-A land shall be maintained by the parties till disposal of the suit.

¶24

It is made clear that if the Opposite Parties propose to make any construction over Schedule-A land, they may move learned trial Court for variation of the order.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Sunita Choudhary v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Choudhary v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhua Kindo Vs Central Chief Information Commnr.,New Delhi

Trilochan Pradhan Vs Laxmipriya Pradhan@ Kishan

Jagdish Sharma Vs Tata Motors Finance

Manjulata Sahoo Vs Arabinda Nayak

Santosh Kumar Panigrahi Vs R.T.O.,Cuttack

Gopinath Dalei Vs Sunit a Dalei