Nrusingha Charan Samal And ... vs Government Of Orissa And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10904 Ori

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

              WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.4436 OF 2002

(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.)


Nrusingha Charan Samal and another           ...... Petitioners

                                          Versus

Government of Orissa and others            ....... Opposite Parties


Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

        For Petitioners          :     Mr. K.K. Bhuyan, Advocate

        For Opposite Parties     :     Mr. D.K. Mohanty, A.G.A.

              CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                             JUDGMENT

21st October, 2021

B.P. Routray,J.

1. The Petitioners' grievance is that the Rural Works Division, Cuttack is constructing the road encroaching their private lands without adhering to the process of land acquisition and accordingly, they have prayed for suitable reliefs.

2. The Petitioners state that they are in lawful possession over Plot Nos.127, 134, 130, 137, 896 under Khata No.401; Plot Nos.147, 149, 897 under Khata No.233; Plot Nos.311, 312, 313, 371 under Khata

No.231; Plot No.366 under Khata No.307; Plot Nos.86, 87, 89, 125 under Khata No.429 of mouza-Bantala; Plot Nos.2230, 2235, 2232 under Khata No.765 and Plot No.2234 under Khata No.764 of mouza- Gopalpur. The aforesaid plots have been recorded in their names and the name of the mother of Petitioner No.1. To connect rural inhabitations under Pradhan Mantri Grama Sadaka Yojana (PMGSY), the improvement of Gopalpur road via-Ramrang and Bantala has been undertaken and approach roads have been constructed. In the process, the private plots belonging to Petitioners have been encroached without any land acquisition process being initiated by Government under due process of law. Thus the Petitioners issued pleader notice to the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Nayabazar, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.4). But the same did not yield any result and the construction work proceeded unheeding their genuine grievance.

3. Opposite Party No.4 has filed its counter denying the allegations leveled by the Petitioners. It has been specifically denied by the State authorities through Opposite Party No.4 that, question of encroachment of any private land does not arise at all in the process of construction and improvement of roads under PMGSY. It is further stated that the concerned road construction proposal was approved in Package No.OR- 07-09 and the work was undertaken complying all relevant formalities in accordance with the guidelines of PMGSY. By filing a copy of the RI report along with the Amin report under Annexures-A/4 and B/4, it is mentioned that the construction work have been undertaken over the pre-existing roads with due measurements taken and demarcations

made. Therefore, the allegations of the Petitioners about encroachment of their private lands are completely denied.

4. As seen from the record, though the Petitioners have alleged encroachment of their private lands without land acquisition proceedings in construction of road, still they have not bothered to file any copy of maps to figure out such specific portion of the land allegedly encroached by the State-Opposite Parties. The Petitioners have made general allegations stating that their lands have been encroached. Equally the State-Opposite Parties while denying the contentions of the Petitioners also did not bother to file the copies of settlement maps.

5. Admittedly, the construction work of roads has been undertaken on the existing road as per the averments of the parties and it is a road improvement package under PMGSY.

6. When the Petitioners claim that their lands have been forcibly encroached by the State-Opposite Parties, the onus lies on them to show the specific portions of encroachment over specific plots. As it is understood from the averments made in the writ petition, the Petitioners are dissatisfied with the width of the road at some points to the extent that the same has intruded into their lands. However, the Petitioners did not choose to mention those details. They also did not file any document to reveal how and where their private lands have been forcibly grabbed by the State authorities. The Petitioners have made general allegations without specifications. Thus this Court does not see any merit in the contention of the Petitioners that their lands have been encroached into by the State authorities.

7. Apart from the above, there appear many disputed questions of facts in the alleged encroachment of private lands of the Petitioners which require evidences to be taken on record and as such, cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the prayer of the petitioners is not entertained and resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, no order as to costs is passed.

(B.P. Routray) Judge

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

B.K. Barik/P.A.