In a writ petition challenging a notice to stop unauthorized construction over land recorded in the name of the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, the High Court upheld the notice issued at the request of the Temple authorities, holding that the Petitioners lacked permission and that the construction was unauthorized.
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
W.P.(C) NO.39008 OF 2021
Nita Dubey and another
…. Petitioner
Mr. Vivaswat Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Suvashish Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 and 4 to 6) Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate (For Shree Jagannath Temple Administration)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
24.08.2022
Flag-K.
Page 1 of 5
// 2 //
petition as Annexure-3 series. The Petitioner No.2, namely, Akrura Senapati, is working under the Petitioner No.1 and is looking after the Chicken Farm constructed over the case land. Due to FANNI, the Chicken Farm is completely destroyed for which the Petitioner No.2 on instruction of Petitioner No.1 started renovating the said structure. At this juncture, the Superintendent of Police, Puri issued a letter to the I.I.C., Balanga P.S. to stop construction. Neither the Superintendent of Police, Puri nor the I.I.C., Balanga P.S. has any competence to issue such notice. If the land stands recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee, the police authorities have no locus standi to issue such notice. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned notice and to permit the Petitioner No.2 to make construction of Chicken Farm over the case land.
Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
Civil Appeal No. 3415 of 2010. Similar such civil appeals were also filed by different Mathas before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. All the civil appeals were heard analogously and in the case of Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee –v- Sidha Matha and others , reported in 2016 (I) OLR (SC) 209, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recording of the land in favour of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration is legal and justified. Accordingly, the case land was recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. Any right of the Petitioner No.1 subsisting prior to the order passed in OJC No.5563 of 2002 gets merged with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Petitioner No.1 has no subsisting right over the case land, which is a barren land and there is no construction over the case land. There is no material on record to show that Akrura Senapati is the agent/servant of Petitioner No.1. When the Petitioner No.2 made an attempt to make construction over the case land, the authorities of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration requested the Tahasildar, Nimapara to initiate appropriate proceeding as per Section 16(A)(i) of Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1964 read with the provisions of O.P.L.E. Act. At this juncture, in spite of request of authorities of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, when the Petitioner No.2 did not stop construction over the case land, they had to approach the Superintendent of Police, Puri to take steps to protect their interest and accordingly, the impugned notice has been issued. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
Administration have requested the Superintendent of Police, Puri to instruct the I.I.C., Balanga P.S. to stop construction over the case land. As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned notice. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
bks
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice issued by the Superintendent of Police directing an Intermediate Inspector to stop unauthorized construction over temple land is legally sustainable.
Whether the Petitioner has any subsisting right over the case land recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration.
Whether the Police authorities were justified in issuing a notice to stop construction after the temple administration requested steps for protection of their interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidha Math and others –v- Shree Jagannath Temple Managing CommitteeReferred¶23
Sidha Math and others –v- Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee
Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee –v- Sidha Matha and othersReferred¶23
Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee –v- Sidha Matha and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nita Dubey
Akrura Senapati
State of Odisha
Shree Jagannath Temple Administration
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
