The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a plea to be added as a party in land acquisition proceedings. The acquired land was held to pertain to Plot No.488, not the petitioner's Plot No.489, causing no cause of action for review.
The writ petition challenging the rejection of the petition to be added as a party is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1064 of 2018 (Through Hybrid mode)
Padmalochan Nayak
Petitioner
Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
National Highway Authority of India and others
…. Opposite Parties
Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate (for O.P. no.9)
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Order No.
ORDER 15.07.2022
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
(c) in sub-section (7) under section 3G in National Highways Act, 1956.
“Counsel for the O.P. No.8 raised objection stating that the dispute relates to Plot No.488 & no way concern with Plot No.489.
Perused the petition U/s.3(H) of N.H. Act filed by N.H.A.I. It reveals that, the acquired land is Ac.0.11 decs. Out of Ac.0.20 decs. of Plot No.488/1515. Hence, no cause of action has arisen to file the petition by the intervener. Hence the petition is rejected.”
In context of and dealing with submissions, including submission made on behalf of opposite party no.8 before it (opposite party no.9 herein), the Court said that acquired land is 0.11 decimals out of 0.20 decimals of plot no.488. In the circumstances petitioner, if has a legally enforceable right in respect of his property, claimed to be plot no.489, can approach the civil Court for restraint orders on user of his plot for purpose of access to any other plot.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
RKS
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for judicial review interference is maintainable when the acquisition proceeding concerns a different plot than the petitioner's claimed property.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi being an owner of a plot not included in the notified acquisition scheme.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Padmalochan Nayak
National Highway Authority of India
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
