Disposed

Ghatakeswara Dhakhinakabata v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Apr 2024WP(C)/33978/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demolition and seeking restraint on further action regarding alleged encroachment. Court directed joint demarcation by Tahsildar to resolve dispute over plot boundaries between petitioners and State.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hold joint demarcation on 28.04.2024 and stay on further demolition till then.

Ghatakeswara Dhakhinakabata Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.33978 of 2020

¶3

Ghatakkeswara Dhakhinakabata and …. Petitioners Another

¶4

Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA

¶8

Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocate for O.P.No.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

04.04.2024

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the opposite parties against the demolition and to prevent the latter from entering into the schedule land without following due process of law.

¶17

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners own plot Nos. 346 & 347 purchased vide Annexures-1 & 2. It is further submitted that there has been no encroachment of any such Government land, which is claimed by the other side. It is alleged that there has been partial demolition

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

of structure standing over plot Nos. 346 & 347 on the premise that there is encroachment over plot No. 340 which stands recorded with the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha. While claiming so, Mr. Mohanty refers to a copy of permission obtained from the BDA as at Annexure-6 to I.A. No. 9065 of 2023, which is filed with a prayer for joint demarcation of the schedule land. Mr. Mohanty lastly submits that for such eviction and demolition of the structure allegedly over plot No.340, action has been initiated pursuant to the issuance of notice vide Annexure-4 for a joint drive by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

¶20

On the other hand Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 referring to the counter affidavit submits that the alleged encroachment is in respect of plot No. 340 which belongs to G.A. Department Government of Odisha. According to Mr. Dash, the construction which has been taken up claiming it to be over plot Nos.346 & 347, Khata No. 340 of MouzaJharpada, Bhubaneswar is in fact over plot No. 340, hence, therefore, opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 rightly issued and served notice vide Annexure-4 in connection with joint demolition drive to remove the same.

¶21

Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Intervenor, who filed I.A. No. 11436 of 2023 with the claim that he is the lis pendense purchaser from the petitioners and a partial demolition of structure of the building owned by him has taken place at the instance of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Learned counsel for opposite party No.3 is present.

¶24

On the one hand, there is denial to any such encroachment by the petitioners over and in respect of plot No. 340 and on the other hand, the same is claimed by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, hence, justifying the alleged action with the issuance of notice vide Annexure-4. There is no dispute over the ownership of the plots purchased vide Annexures-1 & 2 by the petitioners. The lis pendense purchaser claims possession of a portion of plot No. 347(Part) said to have been acquired vide Annexure-1 series dated 27^th April, 2022. The dispute relates to the alleged encroachment claimed by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and outrightly denied by the petitioners on the premise that the alleged construction, partial demolition of which has taken place in the meantime stands over plot Nos. 346 & 347, a part of which is transferred in favour of the lis pendense purchaser.

¶25

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, pleading on record and since request for joint demarcation is received from the petitioners in I.A. No. 9065 of 2023, the Court is of the view that worthy purpose would be served, if a such a demarcation is allowed. In other words, in order to resolve the dispute, according to the Court, a demarcation is necessary in respect of plot Nos. 340, 346 & 347 with the assistance of the local authority, namely, Tahasildar,

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Bhubaneswar to be accomplished in the immediate presence of the petitioners as well as the lis pendense purchaser.

¶28

Hence, it is ordered.

¶29

In the result, writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to hold a joint demarcation with the assistance of the local authority and in the immediate presence of petitioners and the lis pendense purchaser to be held on 28^th April, 2024. The Court further directs that till such demarcation held on the date fixed, there shall be no further demolition in respect of the structure standing over plot No. 340 and for that matter, plot Nos. 346 & 347 owned by the petitioners and lis pendense purchaser.

¶30

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

¶31

Copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Dash as well as Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 respectively for its onward intimation and early compliance.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 06-Apr-2024 16:05:54

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Ghatakeswara Dhakhinakabata v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghatakeswara Dhakhinakabata v. State of Odisha

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

M/S.Sambalpur Uthadokani Sangha Vs Collector,Sambalpur

Neelakantha Muduli Vs Collector, Malkangiri

Rinku Adjuad@Tiklu Vs State of Odisha

Jyoti Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Regional College of Engineering and Management Vs Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Biswaranjan Dhal Vs State of Odisha