Partly allowed

Afsari @ Apsari Begum v. the Collector,Cuttack

Orissa HC14 Jul 2023WP(C)/4903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking relief against obstruction of public road access by construction on schedule land. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the CMC within three weeks, maintaining status quo while the authority decides.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit a fresh representation to the CMC within three weeks; status quo maintained on schedule land.

Afsari @ Apsari Begum Vs the Collector,Cuttack — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.4903 of 2022

¶3

Afsari @ Apsari Begum …. Petitioner Mrs. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The Collector, Cuttack & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr.YSP Babu, AGA Mr. D.Nayak,Advocate for O.P. No.3 Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P.No.4

¶6

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 14.07.2023

¶7

Order No.

¶8

¶9

Heard Mrs. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 besides Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3.

¶10

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties not to obstruct the ingress and egress approaching her private plot connecting the public road through the schedule land.

¶11

Mrs. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother purchased the private land over which their residential house is situated for long. It is further submitted that the private land which belongs to the petitioner situate over plot No. 688/1669 in Cuttack Mouza, Unit-5, Dakhinia, Deula Sahi, Cuttack and in so far as the schedule land is concerned, construction

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

has been put up thereby obstructing her passage and access to the public road. It is also submitted that the petitioner moved the CDA with a representation as at Anenxure-2 for a decision thereon with a request to stop the construction, however, it has not yielded any result, so therefore, the instant writ petition is filed for restraining the opposite parties against blocking access to the public road from her private plot.

¶14

Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the schedule land has not been used as a passage over which the construction has been put up and it is so claimed with reference to an affidavit dated 8^th May, 2022. In reply, Mrs. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule land is in fact has been a passage to approach the road from plot No. 688/1669. In other words, such claim of opposite party No.2 is stoutly denied by the petitioner. A rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the petitioner to that effect.

¶15

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the CMC-opposite party No.3 is present and his submission is recorded.

¶16

In course of hearing, Mr. Babu, learned AGA as well as Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 submit that the petitioner should instead submit her representation to the CMC for a decision which would rather serve the purpose.

¶17

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and grievance of the petitioner and the fact that she is facing difficulty in approaching the public road from her own plot, as in the meantime, a construction has been put up over the schedule land, the Court is of the view that the same should be

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

brought to the notice of the CMC with a representation submitted. In other words, the Court is inclined to grant the liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to opposite party No.3 for a decision according to law.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Hence, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation addressed to opposite party No.3 which shall be within a period of three weeks from today and in the event, any such request is received from her, the authority concerned shall consider it and pass a final order preferably within a period of next four weeks and till such time her grievance is examined and disposed of, there shall be status quo maintained in respect of the schedule land.

¶23

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶24

KABITA/ROJINA

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 15-Jul-2023 13:54:33

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Afsari @ Apsari Begum v. the Collector,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsari @ Apsari Begum v. the Collector,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hrudananda Vs Abadhuta

Dutia Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bhagban Malik Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Ku.Pradhan @ J.Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Ch.Das Vs Commnr.-C-Secy.

Kamala Pradhan @ Kamala Bairiganjan Vs State of Odisha