Disposed¶25

Satyabhama Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Sept 2025WP(C)/20858/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of by High Court of Orissa (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.) on 25.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 20858 of 2025 (Satyabhama Rout v. State of Odisha & Ors.); direction to Forest Authority to cut dried-up Tamarind tree over Plot No.372, Khata No.310, Mouza-Sovarampur endangering Sub-Post Office, Sovarampur; follows earlier permission in R.S.A. No.9 of 2011 (order dated 9.05.2025); logs to stated owner; 15-day timeline; no objection permitted.

What did the court decide?

Permission effectively granted and direction issued to the concerned Forest Authority to cut the endangered Tamarind tree, with liberty to the stated owner to take the logs, completion within 15 days of presentation of a certified copy of the order. ¶25

Satyabhama Rout Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 20858 of 2025

¶3

Satyabhama Rout

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Karunakar Rath, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors. ………. Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

25.09.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition has made a prayer to grant her permission to cut the Tamarind tree situated over Plot No.372, Khata No.310 of Mouza-Sovarampur.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the adjacent land of Plot No.372, Khata No.310 of Mouza-Sovarampur. He further submits that a case bearing Second Appeal No.9 of 2011 is pending before this Court. During the pendency of the said Appeal, the Petitioner has filed a petition for grant of permission to cut the Tamarind Tree which is dried up. He further submits that a Sub-Post Office, Sovarampur is running in a tiled roofed house under the said tree and there is every possibility of falling of the said dried up tree over the tiled roof.

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Sep-2025 13:31:17

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further brings to the notice of this Court to the fact that the Petitioner has been permitted to cut the said tree vide order dated 9.05.2025 passed by this Court in R.S.A. No.9 of 2011. The ordering portion of the said order is extracted below:

¶23

“5. Having regard to the urgency of the matter and the fact that the dangerous position of the tree that apparently shows to have been almost damaged and leaning over the roof of the Post-Office has to be removed, and as such, the Petitioners are permitted to cut the tree in question, if necessary, with the permission of the concerned authorities under law.”

¶24

In view of the above, the concerned Forest Authority is directed to cut the tree in question which is endangering the people residing nearby. It is made clear that, nobody should raise any objection to the cutting of the said tree. The said cutting activity is going to be undertaken to protect the people, who are coming to the Sub-Post Office, Sovarampur. The person who is stated to be the owner of the tree shall take the logs which will be harvested from the said cutting. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

( Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Sep-2025 13:31:17

Satyabhama Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabhama Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sradha Ranjan Nayak Vs Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd, Bhadrak

Pata Sahoo Vs the State Bank of India, Janghira Branch, Keonjhar

National Insurance Company Ltd.,Bbsr Vs Pramita Maiti

Gitanjali Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Mohanty Vs Manager, Icici Bank, Vivekananda Marg Branch, Bbsr