The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 101 of 2025 Biswajit Rath & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate -Versus- Tahasildar, Talcher, Angul & Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC None for O.P.No.4 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 01.12.2025 Order No. 10. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. 2. None appears for opposite party No.4 when the matter is called and at the time of hearing. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 passed in connection with CMC No. 258 of 2023 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talcher in a proceeding initiated under Section 152 BNSS on the grounds stated therein. 4. Referring to the R.I. report, a copy which is at Annexure-2, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the learned court below passed Page 1 of 5 the impugned order vide Anneuxre-6 ignoring the fact that there is no temporary or permanent passage over the case plots. It is further submitted that the learned court below refers to the police report at Annexure-4 in reaching at such a conclusion holding that there is nuisance involved, hence, directed the opposite party members therein to remove the unlawful obstruction from the public road in order to facilitate free movement of the other side with instructions to the IIC of the P.S. concerned to restrain any such illegal activities or disturbance in that regard. The submission is that opposite party No.4 is having no rights to construct temporary passage over the plots recorded in the name of the villagers and while claiming so, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate refers to a copy of the RoR i.e. Annexure-5. It is submitted that except plot No. 567/1159, the other four plots are recorded with kisam Sarada 1,2 & 3 and there is no passage at all, hence, therefore, opposite party No.4 could not have constructed any such temporary passage over the plots in order to access the public road, the fact which was completely lost sight of by the learned court below which is entirely based on the police report i.e. Annexure-4 ignoring the R.I. report and the letter of the concerned Tahasildar as per Annexure-3, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-6 is liable to be interfered with. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State justifies the impugned decision of the learned court below and Page 2 of 5 refers to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to contend that as there has been a nuisance alleged and proved and access of opposite party No.4 was obstructed by the villagers, it was followed by a direction to prevent the same. The further submission is that the details of the circumstances leading to the dispute inter se parties are revealed from the police report at Annexure-4 and considering the same, the learned court below rightly passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6, which deserves no interference. 6. Perused the RoR at Annexure-5 and therein, it is revealed that plot Nos. 345,346,343/1060,365/1135 and 567/1159 recorded in the name of the villagers with the last plot having kisam Gharabari-2 and others as Sarada 1, 2 & 3. From the said RoR, the Court finds that except plot No. 567/1159, the other four plots are agricultural lands. Nowhere, it is indicated in the report of the R.I. at Annexure-2 that there is any passage running through the plots in question. From the police report at Annexure-4, the Court finds that there has been a dispute over the temporary passage and it has been reported that the villagers did the mischief and damaged the road by engaging a JCB machine. But, in Annexure-2, there is no any reference of a passage or public road over the alleged plots. The dispute is for a passage to approach a public road by opposite party No.4 and the same has been opposed by the villagers. Considering such a report as per Annexure-4, the Court finds that there has Page 3 of 5 been a nuisance alleged against the petitioner, hence, the action was followed by the learned court below. In fact, according to the learned court below, there has been unlawful obstruction in the access to the plot owned by opposite party No.4, hence, the same is to be prevented. The dispute is over the temporary construction of the passage, when on the one hand, such access from plot No.348 to the main road is demanded by opposite party No.4 and on the other hand, the same is opposed by the villagers including the petitioners herein. 7. Having regard to the nature of the dispute with regard to a passage but in absence of any such public road anywhere mentioned in the RoR i.e. Annexure-5, the Court arrives at a conclusion that every owner is having access right to approach respective agricultural land, however, without affecting rights of each other. The Court is also to observe that in absence of any passage or public road recorded in the RoR (Annexure-5), any such permanent or temporary construction of a road is also likely to cause inconvenience and also affecting rights of the villagers. Having said that, the Court concludes that even though there has been a subjective satisfaction reached at with regard to existence of nuisance, the Court is inclined to hold that to that extent, the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 at Annexure-6 can be upheld but with an observation that any such access to each of the plots by the owners are not to affect Page 4 of 5 the rights of the village people, especially in absence of any public road or passage recorded in the RoR i.e. Annexure-5. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of modifying the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talcher in CMC No. 258 of 2023 at Annexure-6 with the observation that the petitioners and other villagers including opposite party No. 4 shall have the access to their respective plots but without affecting each other’s rights by raising any such temporary or permanent construction of a passage over the plots in question. 10. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 02-Dec-2025 19:07:48 Page 5 of 5