Disposed¶23

Harish Chandra Hansdah v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Feb 2025WP(C)/2763/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment removal from public PWD road; writ of direction against Tahasildar/State of Odisha; representation route adopted instead of merits adjudication; ten-day disposal timeline; encroacher's death on 14.12.2024; Tahasildar Bahalda Letter No.425 dated 20.02.2025; Mayurbhanj; Khata No.267 Plot No.369/2261; market complex/livelihood property; obstruction to access and traffic; disposed of without merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit a representation to the Tahasildar, Bahalda/Opposite Party No.1, who must consider and dispose of it within ten days of presentation of the order or its certified copy, whichever is earlier. ¶23

Harish Chandra Hansdah Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2763 of 2025

¶3

Harish Chandra ..... Petitioner Hansdah Mr. S. K. Dey, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

..... State of Odisha & Opposite Parties Anr. Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

¶6

..... Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

¶9

Order ORDER No. 24.02.2025

¶10

02.

¶11

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to remove the encroachment made on the public PWD Road on the southern and eastern side of the premises of the Petitioner described under Annexure 1 &2.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that land measuring AO.200 Decimal in Khata No.267 Plot No. 369/2261 Homestead in Mouza Gidhighati Ps Tiring District Mayurbhanj along with other properties stands recorded in the name of the Petitioner’s father Rama Chandra Majhi in the ROR published in the year 1986,

¶14

Page 1 of 4.

¶15

who has expired in the mean while and the said property is the ancestral property of the Petitioner. The said land of the Petitioner abuts the PWD Road running East - west on its southern Side and North - south on its eastern side. The Petitioner has constructed a building over his land pertaining to Plot No.369/2261 facing to southern side and Eastern side, which he has constructed for the purpose of a market complex for his livelihood and the said land has also been demarcated by the Tahasildar Opposite Party No.l. A kutchha thatched jhupri house has been unauthorizedly constructed over the PWD Road blocking the entry to the house of the Petitioner from PWD Road to a portion of his premises from Northern side and to his entire premises from eastern side by one Kunara Hembram for running a Tea shop which has been closed and abandoned and his whereabout is not known. As the said thatched house was constructed encroaching the Public road thereby restricting the free movement of the Public and vehicular traffic, it not only caused obstruction to the entry to the Petitioner’s premises but also caused free movement of the public on the public road causing traffic congestion and difficulties in movement of heavy vehicle, though time and again, objection has been submitted to Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2 by the local persons including the Petitioner to remove

¶16

Page 2 of 4.

¶17

the encroachment from the public road, no action has been taken as yet by the Opposite Party No 1. For such unlaw full encroachment on the public road, the Petitioner has been deprived off entries to his house from public road from southern side and western side and has been deprived of beneficial enjoyment of his house, which stands on a comer abutting public road on its southern and Eastern side though the Opposite Parties are duty bound to remove unauthorised encroachment from the public road they have failed to discharge their responsibilities despite public objections. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the State has filed a written instruction from the Tahasildar, bahalda in Letter No.425 dated 20.02.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the encroachment land is still not made free despite several notice has been given. The eviction process has also not been executed. Now, the thatched house is in a dilapidated condition. Hence, the encroachment house is not free from encroachment.

¶19

5. In this context, as per the instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that since the encroacher has died on 14.12.2024, the encroached land is treated as free from encroachment.

¶20

Page 3 of 4.

¶21

6. Considering the submissions made by the parties

¶22

and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case permits the Petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Bahalda/Opposite Party No.1 by way of a representation and the Tahasildar, Bahalda/Opposite Party No.1 shall consider and dispose of his representation within a period of ten days from the date of presentation of this order or its certified copy, whichever is earlier.

¶23

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶25

Gitanjali

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:39:00

¶28

Page 4 of 4.