Disposed

Balistha Mahakuda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Jul 2025WP(C)/1857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an encroachment on a canal by industrial occupiers. After hearing submissions and verifying a joint report, the court directed the State to vacate the encroachment within two months without immediately admitting the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Authority to take proactive steps to vacate the canal from encroachment and restore water flow within two months.

Balistha Mahakuda Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1857 of 2025

¶3

Balistha Mahakura

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

……..…. Opposite Party (s)

¶9

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Adv.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER 15.07.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following

¶18

prayer:

¶19

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue Rule Nisi to the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 calling upon them to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued quashing the impugned Order under Annexure-8 passed by the Collector, Subarnapur and further commanding the Opposite Parties to take immediate steps to remove the encroachment of canal by the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 and evict them from the canal existing over Plot No. 798 Khata No. 536 measuring Ac.0.590 dec. kissam Karanala in Mouza Kamira under Signature Not VerifiedBinika Tahasil in the District Subarnapur and further direct the Digitally Signed authorities to take immediate steps to clear the canal and restore the Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication water flow in the canal for supply of water to the agricultural lands of Location: OHC Date: 18-Jul-2025 19:25:14 the Pet itioner and other villagers;

¶20

¶21

And if the Opp.partiees fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute.

¶22

And pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land pertaining to Plot No.798, Khata No.536 measuring an area Ac.0.590 dec. kissam Karanala of Mouza-Kamira under Binika Tahasil in the district of Subarnapur is recorded as Canal kissam in the name of that State Government. He further submits that the character of the particular kissam cannot be changed or diverted by the Authority in favour of any private individual or any company. He further submits that the Opposite Party No.5 and 6 have purchased the surrounding lands and set up their industries covering by a boundary wall. They have obstructed the canal and covered the same by waste material thereby blocking the water flow to the cultivable lands of the Petitioner and other villagers.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that a joint verification was conducted by a Committee constituted by the order of the Collector consisting of Tahasildar, Binika, AEE, Rampur Canal Sub-Division, J.E., Barkarley Canal Section, Rampur and Revenue Inspector, Singhijuba. The report was submitted

¶25

suggesting for eviction and to revive the canal. Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 submits that Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Jul-2025 19:25:14 the ca na l is lying dried since 20 years and there is no use of canal

¶27

¶28

water by the people of the locality. He further submits that the Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 have neither obstructed the canal nor have blocked the water flow to the cultivable lands of the Petitioner and other villagers. He further submits that since the eviction order has been issued against the individual Director instead of company, the notice cannot be called sufficient.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has already issued Forms “Ka” and “Kha”against the encroachers in L.E. Case No.169/2023-24. Hence, there is no complacency on the part of the Government.

¶30

In such view of the matter and considering the above submission made by the parties and the joint verification report as per order of the Collector, Sambalpur, this Court is of the view that the Authority shall take proactive steps for vacating the canal from any kind of encroachment or the actors whose action needs to loosing the character of the canal within a period two months from today. If there is defect in the issuance of the eviction notice, the State shall take remedial measure to remove the defects and issue fresh notice, if required.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Date: 18-Jul-2025 19:25:14 Judge

¶34

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶35

Murmu

Balistha Mahakuda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balistha Mahakuda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayanta Behera Vs Branch Manager, Yes Bank Ltd., Patia Branch, Bbsr

Legal Manager, M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Khurda Vs Bijaya Kumar Dalai

Legal Manager, M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Khurda Vs Prasanna Kumar Dalai

D.M.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Cuttack Vs Himadri Bhukta

Santosh Kumar Dash Vs Chithra Arumugam , I.A.S.

New Inida Assurance Co. Ltd.,Cuttack Vs Bhagaban Barik