In a writ petition challenging orders dismissing an application for temporary injunction, the High Court of Orissa dismissed the petition. The Court found that since the land recorded in the Irrigation Department's name was acquired for a canal, the petitioner lacked locus standi and right to possession despite alleging eviction.
CMP dismissed as devoid of merit.
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 CMP NO.581 OF 2023 Tahamir Khan and another …. Petitioners
…. Petitioners
Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Collector, Puri and others …. Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
13.09.2023
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
Court held that there is prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner and balance of convenience leans in his favour but refused to grant an ad interim order to injunction restraining the Opposite Parties from entering upon the suit land. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed FAO No.7 of 2022 which was also dismissed. While adjudicating the appeal, learned appellate Court erroneously held that the land stood recorded in the name of the Collector, Puri which is not correct.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Kakatpur for construction of the Gram Panchayat Office. Had the Petitioner been in possession over the suit land, he would have objected to the same. He further submits that once the land is acquired and the Petitioner has received the compensation, he has no semblance of right over the suit property. Of course, he may workout his remedy under the Act, 2013, if so advised. But for the same, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 14-Sep-2023 10:40:43
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Rojalin
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned order dismissing the temporary injunction application regarding the acquired land.
Whether the petitioner has the right to claim restoration of possession when the land was acquired and does not stand in his name.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to restrain the gram panchayat from constructing its office on the suit land.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tahamir Khan and another
Collector, Puri and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
