Partly allowed

Sikhar Ch.Naik @Shikhar Ch.Naik v. Sub-Collector-Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Kamakhyanagar

Orissa HC26 Aug 2022CRLMC/5073/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the impugned removal order dated 31st July 2015 was illegal because the authority failed to establish that the road was a public road or in public use. The order was set aside, but the matter was remanded to the authority to examine the aspect strictly in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31st July 2015 set aside; matter remanded to authority to examine if road is public and in public use.

Sikhar Ch.Naik @Shikhar Ch.Naik Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5073 of 2015

¶2

Sikhar Ch.Naik @ Shikhar Chandra …. Petitioners Naik and others

¶3

Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & others

¶6

…. Opp.Parties Mr. I. Mohanty, ASC

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER 26.08.2022

Order No.

In spite of valid service of notice and appearance through learned counsel, none is present for Opposite Parties 2 to 5 today.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Petitioners is present and submits that Hal Plot No.2593 under holding No.308 pertaining to village Mahulpal is a private and not a “PublicRasta” which is the subject matter of the issue wherein the alleged obstruction said to have been raised and directed for removal. He too referred to the ROR showing the kissam of land its nomenclature.

¶13

The impugned order dated 31^st July, 2015 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.36 of 2015 by the learned S.D.M., Kamakhyanagar reveals that the order of removal has been passed with assuming the road in question under obstruction to be a private road allegedly on the admission of the O.P. in the proceeding U/s.133 Cr.P.C. Prudent demand that before passing of any order as to the removal of the obstruction in a public road, it is incumbent upon

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

the court to be satisfied that the road in question is a “public road or Place”. A subjective satisfaction is also imperative that the same is in use by the Public. Absence of any such conclusion makes the whole exercise of the authority us.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 31^st July, 2015 suffers from illegality and deserves to be set aside. However, the authority is not precluded from examining the above aspect strictly in adherence to the mandate of relevant law and take appropriate action, if so required in the interest of public to avoid nuisance.

¶17

The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
B.C.Mohanty

¶18

Page 2 of 2

Sikhar Ch.Naik @Shikhar Ch.Naik v. Sub-Collector-Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Kamakhyanagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikhar Ch.Naik @Shikhar Ch.Naik v. Sub-Collector-Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Kamakhyanagar

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

Puspanjali Jena Vs State of Odisha

Kabita Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Nigar Begum Vs State of Orissa

Dharmendra Bothra Vs Union of India

Somanath Adhikari Vs State of Orissa

Bhagaban Sahu Vs State of Orissa