Orissa High Court
Swadhin Kumar Choudhury vs The State Of Odisha And on 11 February, 2021
Author: S.Pujahari
Bench: S.Pujahari
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2020
Swadhin Kumar Choudhury ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Odisha and
others ... Opp. Parties
ORDER
05. 11.02.2021 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC.
This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the averment that the land appertaining to Hal Plot No.1151, Khata No.590 which corresponds to Sabik Plot No.1110, Khata No.298 of revenue Mouza- Konark in the district of Puri stands recorded in the name of Rajkishore Sahoo. The said Rajkishore Sahoo was possessing the said land in his own right, title and interest and after him, the same is in peaceful and continuous possession of the present Petitioner and other legal heirs of Rajkishore Sahoo.
While the matter stood thus, the NAC Konark has put a board on the said land of the Petitioner indicating that the site is reserved for construction of 2 Micro Composting Centre and Smart Park of the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department, Bhubaneswar.
Since the authority has put the aforesaid sign board and damage the property of the Petitioner, i.e., by cutting the trees without any authority in violation of the constitutional right of the Petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the Opposite Parties not to encroach the said land of the Petitioner and also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing damage to such property.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party No.5-the Executive Officer, Konark NAC wherein the aforesaid fact has been disputed by the Konark NAC with the averment that no construction is made over the land of the Petitioner as alleged. It has taken the specific stand that they are making construction for Micro Composting Centre and Smart Park, the land allotted to them.
But, as it appears from the counter affidavit filed, they have come with a case that Plot No.1142 and 1149/3013 has not been selected for the project, but the Petitioner states that his Plot No.1151, which is in his possession, has been handed over to the Konark NAC has not been disputed in this case.
Be that as it may, since there is serious dispute with regard to the land being stitiban in kissam and 3 possessed by the Petitioner and the same alleged to have been taken over by the Konark NAC forcibly, so also the Petitioner has claimed for compensation in this case, the same cannot be effectively adjudicated in this writ petition.
Accordingly, giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to ventilate his grievance contesting the claim of the NAC that his stititban land has not been taken over, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
.......................
S.Pujahari, J.
DA