The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19511 of 2023 Prahalad Kasta Petitioner Mr. Bidesh Ranjan Behera, Advocate & Associates …. -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 23.06.2023 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. An unregistered I.A. is filed by the petitioner to implead WATCO as opposite party No.9 to the writ petition since it is a necessary party. 3. A copy of the said I.A. is already served on Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State. Along with the said I.A., the consolidated cause title incorporating WATCO as opposite party No.9 is filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today. 4. The I.A. which is not yet numbered be registered forthwith. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 1, 7 & 8 and Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. Page 1 of 4 6. No notice need be issued to opposite party Nos. 6 & 9 since the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 7. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties not to demolish any portion of the schedule land and the house standing over the plot Nos. 238/1649 and.238 measuring an Area Ac.1.540 dec. and Ac. 1.440 dec. respectively under Khata No. 619 situate in Mouza- Bhubaneswar, Unit-41, Chandrasekharpur while taking up construction under JICA project without following due process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is under the possession of the petitioner which stands recorded in the remarks column of the Record of Right of 1988 settlement, a copy of which is at Annexure-1. It is further submitted that a proceeding in OEA Misc. Case No. 1 of 1993 which has been initiated by the OEA Collector-cum-Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is subjudice. It is also submitted that such possession by the petitioner in respect of the schedule land is substantiated by the reports dated 15th March, 1993 and 17th October, 1995, copies of which are at Annexures 4 & 5 respectively. It is alleged that opposite party Nos. 6 to 8 have taken action for eviction and demolition, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) 17781 of 2019 which was disposed of by an order dated 24th September, 2019 with necessary observation and direction that no eviction shall be carried out without following due process of law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once again action was taken in the year 2020, whereafter, W.P.(C) No. 21667 of 2020 was filed, wherein, an interim order of status quo was passed by order dated 1st September, 2022 which is not yet disposed of and as such pending. Lastly, it is submitted that while dealing with the matter, this Court Page 2 of 4 in OJC No. 6721 of 1999 by an interim order in Misc. Case No. 253 of 2014 dated 16th April, 2015 held and directed that since the Project Monitoring Committee has been constituted by a notification dated 19th March, 2015, any such objection with regard to the JICA project shall be examined in case representations received by it. Referring to a copy of said order under Annexure-8, learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the petitioner has moved the Chairman, Project Monitoring Committee and placed this grievance for consideration. In fact, it is submitted that the representation dated 21st June, 2023 under Annexure-9 is submitted before the Project Monitoring Committee consequence to the Courts’ direction and order in OJC No. 6721 of 1999. It is also alleged that the said representation has not yet been considered and examined by the Committee so constituted for the purpose and hence, therefore, necessary direction may be issued in that regard. 9. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 1, 7 & 8 submits that if any such representation is submitted by the petitioner, as it is claimed, if the Court is inclined, a direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to examine it for a decision according to law. 10. The submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 is recorded. 11. Since the grievance of the petitioner under Annexure-9 is pending for a decision, having taken cognizance of the facts as above and since the Project Monitoring Committee is in place since long to examine objections received with regard to JICA project, the Court is of the considered view that the said representation should be taken up for examination at the earliest since it is alleged Page 3 of 4 that construction of the drainage work is likely to affect his interest as it is over the land in question under his possession. An objection is raised by Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos. 1, 7 & 8 to the effect that there is a dispute over the title of the case land and in that regard, OEA proceeding is initiated and currently pending before the authority concerned. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the alleged claim and also on the title of the schedule land, is of the humble view that the representation under Anneuxre-9 should be examined on its own merit considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice at least for the present. 12. Accordingly, it is ordered. 13. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and examine the representation under Anneuxre-9 and to take a decision thereon at the earliest after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also other parties involved and to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time to maintain status quo vis-à-vis the schedule land. 14. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Judge (R.K.Pattanaik) Kabita Page 4 of 4