Orissa High Court
M/S. Lingaraj Infrastructure Private ... vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 March, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
M/s. Lingaraj Infrastructure Private Ltd. Bhubaneswar.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Dash, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv.
(For Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3) Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA (For the Opp. Party Nos.1 & 4) Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate.
(For the intervenor-petitioner) WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 1 of 22 P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 10.02.2025 :: Date of Order : 10.03.2025 O RDER ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) an order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the Opposite Party No.3(City Planner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar) under Section 92 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in short ODA Act) and to direct the Opposite Parties issuing a writ of mandamus to drop all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said proceeding under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in real estate development. The petitioner company and one Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Shyam Shree/Partner Developer) purchased two adjacent plots vide Plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 respectively under Khata WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 2 of 22 Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 forming an area of Ac.0.650 decimals in Mouza-Patia, Bhubaneswar in the year 2010 through two separate sale deeds (Annexure-2 series) for the real estate development purposes.
Since the date of their above purchase, the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd are the lawful owners and in possession over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921. The petitioner and its partner Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd both have mutated to their aforesaid purchased plots to their names and after mutation, separate R.o.Rs have already been prepared in their names under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 (as per Annexure-3). The total area of both the plots is Ac.0.650 Decimals.
3. The petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd made an application before the Opposite Party No.3(City Planner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar) for an approval of their building plan for construction of a commercial building over their plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia. So, as per the requirement of Opposite Party No.3, WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 3 of 22 the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) submitted a demarcation report through its letter dated 26.12.2014 vide Annexure-4 confirming the boundaries of the above two plots vide plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 on the basis of measurement by Revenue Inspector in presence the intervenor- petitioner and others. Then, in response to the letter dated 29.08.2017 vide Annexure-5 of Opposite Party No.3, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) vide its letter No.10984 dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure-6) submitted report before the Opposite Party No.3 confirming the identity of plot Nos. 516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 along with its demarcation indicating lawful possession of the petitioner and its partner Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd over the same. Thereafter, again on the asking of Opp. Party No.3, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar as per its letter dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure-8) submitted report stating about the possession of the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree Residency Private Limited over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 after its proper demarcation. Then, through letter dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure-9) Opp. Party No.3 requested Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) to WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 4 of 22 confirm the possession of the petitioners and its partner over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata No.474/4108 and 474/4107 on the basis of the demarcation made. So, as per letter dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure-10), the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) confirmed the possession of the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 in Mouza-Patia on the basis of the demarcation made.
4. After taking all the above annexures vide Annexure Nos.4 to 10 along with other materials required under law as per the provisions of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 into consideration, the Opposite Party No.3 approved the building plan of the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree as per letter No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11) under Section 16 (3) of ODA Act, 1982 and granted permission to the petitioner to carry out developments/constructions of LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping center) commercial building over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia indicating the parameters & conditions in the said Annexure-11. WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 5 of 22
5. On being authorized by the Opp. Party No.3 as per Annexure-11, the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree carried out construction of their commercial building over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia.
While the petitioner and its partner were continuing with the constructions over the plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia, on the complaint of a third party namely, Tanwir Dar Ali Khan (who is the intervenor-petitioner in this writ petition), the Opposite Party No.3 issued a letter vide letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) directing the petitioner to stop construction on plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 alleging that said construction is unauthorized and suspended the permission for construction granted by it through Letter No. ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11) stating about its immediate effect assigning the reasons in the said Annexure-1 that, "when Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar communicated through its letter No.15023 dated 08.12.2023 that, the physical possession of the case plots vide plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 in Mouza-Patia is difficult to ascertain, as original lease map is not available in Tahasil Office, Bhubaneswar. Both the parties, Tanwir Dar Ali Khan and Saket Kumar Agarwal, claiming WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 6 of 22 possession over one land for Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 is civil in nature, both parties claiming possession over the same land may approach the Civil Court to prove their possession over the case land. Hence, the matter over case land is in dispute regarding possession.
Hence, in exercise of the provision prescribed under Section 92 of the Odisha Development Authority Act, 1982, you are directed to stop unauthorized construction over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and the permission issued vide letter No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11) is hereby suspended with immediate effect."
6. On being aggrieved with the said order/letter dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Courts by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting aside) that Annexure-1 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on the ground that, the Opposite Parties have no authority or jurisdiction under law to stop the legally authorized constructions over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 made by the petitioner as per the approved plan and lawful permission through Annexure-11 granted by the same Opp. Party No.3. As such, the Opposite Party No.3 is estopped under law to issue such letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner indirectly withdrawing/recalling its own order/permission vide Annexure-11 for construction. For which, WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 7 of 22 the issuance of Annexure-1 by the Opposite Party No.3 to the petitioner is contrary to law and the same is liable to be quashed.
7. When a third party, i.e. Tanwir Dar Ali Khan tried to intervene in this writ petition between the petitioner and the Opposite Parties, then, as per Order dated 04.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.4031 of 2024, liberty was given to the engaged learned Sr. Counsel of the intervenor-petitioner Tanwir Dar Ali Khan to participate in the hearing of the arguments in this writ.
8. Accordingly, I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner, learned AGA for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 4, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 and the learned Sr. Counsel for the intervenor-petitioner.
9. The Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have stated in their counter affidavit challenging the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground that, the writ petition of the petitioner assailing the impugned order (Annexure-1) of Opp. Party No.3 is pre-mature, for which, the petitioner must wait till the completion of the proceeding under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 before the Opposite Party No.3.
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 8 of 22
10. According to the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, when it has been clearly envisaged in the condition No.9 of Annexure-11 that, in case of any dispute arising out of land record or in respect of right, title, interest after this permission is granted, the permission so granted shall be treated as automatically cancelled during the period of dispute and when the civil dispute in respect of the case land is pending between the petitioner and intervenor-petitioner, then, permission for construction granted through Annexure-11 to the petitioner was cancelled lawfully by Opp. Party No.3 as per Annexure-1 for violation of the condition No.9. For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
11. The intervenor-petitioner (Tanwir Dar Ali Khan) submitted an affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition stating that, the petitioner is not in legal possession over plot No.516/1759. The demarcation of plot No.516/1759 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is not correct and the demarcation reports along with its sketch maps submitted before the Opposite Party No.3 are forged documents. The petitioner has used and attached the sketch map of plot No.516/1724 against plot WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 9 of 22 No.516/1759. For which, entire confusion has been created by the petitioner. The petitioner and its partner being influential person, they are trying to harass him. The petitioner's plot is distinct from his plot No.516/1724. Suit vide C.S. No.678 of 2013 has been filed by him against Silver Stone Builders Private limited and Mahabir Sahoo & Sons Resorts Private Limited for a decree of declaration in respect of plot No.516/1724 under Khata No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia, wherein status quo order has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Another suit vide C.S. No.8261 of 2015 has been filed by M/s. Mahabir Sahoo & Sons Resorts Private Limited against the petitioner and another for permanent injunction in respect of plot No.516/1724 under mutated Khata No.474/4447 corresponding to Original Khata No.474/32, wherein, status quo order has also been passed. According to him (intervenor-petitioner), when the actual identification of plot Nos.516/1724 is in dispute before the Civil Court as it has been alleged by him that, the petitioner of this writ petition has attached the sketch map of his plot No.516/1724 against plot No.516/1759, then, under these situations, in absence of proper identification of above plots in WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 10 of 22 dispute, the issuance of Annexure-1 by the Opposite Party No.3 to the petitioner to stop construction over plot No.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 as well as suspension of permission for construction cannot be held as illegal. For which, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavits and counter affidavits of the petitioner, Opposite Parties & intervenor- petitioner, the crux of this writ petition for adjudication are:
(I) Whether the dispute alleged by the intervenor-petitioner before the Opposite Party No.3 in respect of the boundary of plot No.516/1724 will amount to contravention of condition No.9 of the permission for construction granted by the Opposite Party No.3 as per Annexure-11 according to the provisions laid down in Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982?
(II) Whether the Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3 being the planning authority functioning under ODA Act, 1982 were authorized under law to issue the letter (Annexure-1) directing the petitioner to stop construction over plot No.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 in Mouza-Patia as per Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 alleging demarcation/boundary dispute on the complain of a third party i.e. Tanwir Dar Ali Khan much after allowing/granting permission to the petitioner through Annexure-11 for construction of shopping complex on plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921, while the petitioner was continuing with such constructions over the same?
(III) Whether the third party, who was the complainant before the Opp. Party No.3 has locus standi to be added as an intervenor WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 11 of 22 in a challenge to stop construction under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982?
13. When the above three (3) formulated points/issues between the parties of this writ petition are interlinked having ample nexus with each other, then, all the above three points are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder:
Section 92(1) of the ODA Act, 1982 provides that, "where any development in any area has been commenced in contravention of the development plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in Section 15 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted, the Authority or any officer of the Authority empowered it by in this behalf, may, in addition to any prosecution that may be instituted under this Act, make an order requiring the development to be discontinued on and from the date of the service of the order, and such order shall be complied with accordingly."
The above sub-clause (1) of Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 clarifies that, under the following three conditions, the authorities under ODA Act, 1982 can stop constructions and such conditions are:
"(i) when the development has been commenced in contravention of the development plan, WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 12 of 22
(ii) when the development has been commenced without the permission, approval or sanction of the competent authority and,
(iii) When the development is in contravention of any conditions subject to which, such permission, approval or sanction has been granted."
14. It is the own case of the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 that, the Annexure-1 issued by them (Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3) to the petitioner to stop construction is not coming within the purview of above condition Nos.(i) & (ii) of Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982. Because, it is not the case of the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 that, the development has been commenced by the petitioner in contravention of the development plan or such development is without the permission/approval/sanction of the competent authority.
15. Now, it will be seen, whether the Annexure-1 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 to the petitioner to stop construction is coming within the purview of the above condition No.(iii) of Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 or not.
16. In condition No.9 of Annexure-11 granted by the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 in favour of the petitioner for construction of LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping centre) commercial building over WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 13 of 22 plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia, it has been specifically reflected that, "In case of any dispute arising out of land record or in respect of right, title, interest after this permission is granted, the permission so granted shall be treated as automatically cancelled during the period of dispute."
17. It is forthcoming from the own affidavit of the intervenor- petitioner that, he along with his family members are joint owners of Ac.0.500 decimals of plot No.516/1724 under Khata No.474/23 in Mouza-Patia and the said plot No.516/1724 is a separate/different/distinct/independent plot in the R.o.R. as well as in the map.
The disputed land in CS. No.678 of 2013 is plot No.516/1724 under Khata No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia. The disputed land in C.S. No.8261 of 2015 is also plot No.516/1724 under Mutation Khata No.474/4447 corresponding to Khata No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia.
As per Annexure-11, the building plan of the petitioner for commercial complex over plot No.516/1759 under Khata No.474/4108 and Plot No.516/1759/4921 under Khata WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 14 of 22 No.474/4107 in Mouza-Patia was approved by the Opposite Party No.3 on dated 26.09.2022 as per Annexure-11. On the basis of which, the developments/constructions over plot No.516/1759 & plot No.516/1759/4921 were carried out by the petitioner authorizedly.
As such, plot Nos.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 in respect of which, the building plan of the petitioner was approved by the Opp. Party No.3 as per Annexure-11 are not the disputed properties of any of the above two civil suits vide C.S. No.678 of 2013 and C.S. No.8261 of 2015. Therefore, the above two civil suits vide C.S. No.678 of 2013 and C.S. No.8261 of 2015 are unconnected with plot Nos.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 contained in Annexure-11.
18. Now, the question arises, when the developments/constructions were carried out by the petitioner over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 authorisedly on the basis of the plan duly approved by the Opposite Party No.3 as per Annexure-11 under Section 16(3) of the ODA Act, 1982, then, whether in the midst of such developments/constructions, the Opp. Party No.3 was authorized under law to issue the WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 15 of 22 order/letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner to stop further developments/constructions on the said plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 on the complaint of the intervenor-petitioner before it alleging boundary dispute in respect of his plot No.516/1724.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts & Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Shree Sai Reality Through Partner Shri. Sandeep Dindayal AAgarval and others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2019 SCC Online (Bom) 1421 "The planning authority cannot enter into the private dispute and more so when the dispute relates/touches the boundaries of the lands it is Civil Court, which alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and answer the issue. In the case in hand, planning authority ventured to act upon complaint of third party through Revenue Authorities. It is not the Corporation's case that the petitioners commenced the development unlawfully and/or the building permission has been granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statements made by the petitioner in the notice or information furnished under Section 253 or 254 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.
That even, otherwise, maps which were produced WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 16 of 22 for seeking development permission were drawn by the Revenue Officials, therefore, even assuming that these Maps are incorrect, fault cannot be attributed to the petitioners and they can't be penalized for it. In view of the facts of the case and for the reasons stated, we answer the question No.1 to hold that, the Corporation being planning authority was not within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of alleged boundary dispute nor was justified in law in restraining the petitioners from continuing with the construction, until the boundary is fixed and settled by the Revenue Authorities.
As a result of the above discussion, the stop work order of the Corporation dated 24th January 2019 is set aside. In so far as order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records is concerned, petitioners are at liberty to challenge it, in accordance with law, and we decline to interfere with it. We clarify that the rival versions on the factual dispute about measurement, boundary etc. are expressly kept open. Our order in this petition does not render any opinion on the same. (Para Nos.18 & 19) II. In a case between Smt. Khirodini Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa, represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department & Others reported in 1996 (I) OLR 387 that, for removal of unauthorized construction, action to be initiated on the basis of information of any functionary or employee or on the basis of complaint WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 17 of 22 of any person. The dispute would be confined to the person against whom complaint is made and the authorities under the Act. A third party has no locus standi to be added as party or intervenor. If the presence of a third party is necessary for adjudication, he may be added as party. Distinction between necessary party and proper party, indicated. A person who has no interest in the property cannot be added as a party. If he seeks any remedy, he has to go to Civil Court. (Para Nos.4 & 5) III. In a case between Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 that, action to be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits to be excluded. (Para No.8) IV. In a case between Kutchi Lal Rameswar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr. Velji Devshi Patel Vs. Collector, Haridwar & Others reported in 2017 (4) CCC 26 (SC) that, Administrative Authorities including the Collector cannot adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes. It is in the domain of competent Civil Court as per Section 9 of the CPC, 1908. (Para No.21).
19. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court, the authorities under ODA Act, 1982 i.e. Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, & City WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 18 of 22 Planner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3) have no authority or jurisdiction to enter into the private disputes or to decide the inter se private disputes of the citizens.
20. When as per letter No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11), the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 had approved the building plan of the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the ODA Act, 1982 after being confirmed/satisfied with the demarcation and possession of the petitioner over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 on the reports of the appropriate lawful official authority for the same i.e. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) time and again and had permitted the petitioner for carrying out the construction of LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping center) commercial building over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and when on the basis of the said authorization, the petitioner was carrying out developments/constructions over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921, one year and three months thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 should not have issued letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner directing him to stop the construction over plot WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 19 of 22 Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 suspending permission for construction granted through Annexure-11 alleging that, "it is difficult to ascertain the physical possession of plot No.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 due to non-availability of original lease map in the Tahasil Office, Bhubaneswar and the nature of dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the matter over case land is in dispute regarding possession" indirectly recalling its own order/permission granted through Annexure-11, when the petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 had already acted upon by the Annexure-11 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 to the petitioner.
For which, the Opposite Party No.3 is estopped under law to deny the validity and binding effect of his own letter/permission vide Annexure-11. Because, the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 being the responsible authorities as well as model litigants, they (Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3) are not permitted under law to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate" at the same time.
Therefore, the planning authority i.e. Opposite Party No.3 was not competent under law to issue Annexure-1 to the WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 20 of 22 petitioner directing the petitioner to stop construction over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and the Opp. Party No.3 was also not competent under law to suspend the permission for construction granted through Annexure-11. Because, the constructions, which were carrying out by the petitioner over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 were not unauthorized/illegal constructions. Rather the said constructions were legally authorized constructions. The disputes raised by the intervenor- petitioner is not coming within the purview of Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 authorizing the Opposite Party No.3 to direct the petitioner through order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to stop construction over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and to suspend the permission for construction granted lawfully on the ground of private boundary dispute raised by the intervenor- petitioner.
21. Therefore, the order dated 16.01.2024 issued through letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) by the Opp. Party No.3 to the petitioner cannot be sustainhable under law. The same is liable to be quashed through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 21 of 22
As such, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
22. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.
23. The order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-1 communicated to the petitioner through letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 is quashed/set aside.
Due to quashing of Annexure-1, the Opp. Nos.2 & 3 are directed to drop all the consequential proceedings arising out of Annexure-1 under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 10 .03. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Senior Stenographer to Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.C. Behera.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 12-Mar-2025 19:26:10 WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 22 of 22