Orissa High Court
Paramananda Pati vs Prasanta Kumar Haldar And Others on 17 October, 2022
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A No.431 of 2017
Paramananda Pati .... Appellant
Mr. B.Mohanty,Advocate
-versus-
Prasanta Kumar Haldar and others .... Respondents.
Mr. Goutam Mishra, Sr. Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
17.10.2022
Order No.
09. 1. The short question that arises in the present appeal is whether
the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the plea of the
present Appellant to be permitted to intervene in W.P (Civil) No.
24 of 2017?
2. Admittedly, it is on the complaint of the Appellant that
proceedings for removal of unauthorized construction was
initiated against Respondent No.1 by the Jajpur Municipality. A
notice of demolition dated 14th December 2016 was issued by it
to Respondent No.1. Aggrieved by demolition notice,
Respondent No.1 filed Writ petition (Civil) No.24 of 2017 in
which the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 3rd
January,2017 staying the demolition notice. The grievance of the
present Appellant is that since the unauthorized construction
raised by Respondent No.1 directly affects the Appellant, he is
// 2 //
both a necessary and a proper party to the proceedings in the writ
petition.
3. Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision in Smt. Khirodini
Sahoo v. State of Orissa 1996 (I) OLR-387 to urge that the
prayer of the present Appellant is not tenable in law.
4. This Court notes that the facts in Smt. Khirodini Sahoo v.
State of Orissa (supra) are more or less similar to the facts in the
present case. There the Petitioner was aggrieved by an order of
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Housing and
Urban Development Department in an appeal under Section
91(2) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act,1982 permitting
the complainant at whose behest demolition notice was issued to
be impleaded as party. In the said judgment, it was inter alia
observed as under:
"Action is to be taken by the concerned authority for
removal of unauthorized development and the action
may be initiated on the basis of information given by
any functionary or employee of the Development
Authority (in short, "the Authority") or on the basis
of complaint received from any person about
commencement or continuance or completion of any
unauthorized development. After initiation of the
proceeding, the dispute becomes one between the
Authority and the noticee i.e., the person allegedly
making unauthorized development. Thereafter
person making the complaint has no right to
participate in the proceeding. The proceeding is a
statutory one and can only involve the Authority and
person making unauthorized development. In such
// 3 //
proceeding the original complainant is neither a
necessary nor proper party. Where presence of a
person before a Court, Tribunal or Authority is
necessary in order to enable it effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions in the dispute, such a person should be
added as a party. This finding is a condition
precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction by the
forum for addition of a party. Two sets for
determining the question who is a necessary party to
a proceeding are: firstly, there must be a right to
some relief against such party in respect of the
matter involved in the proceedings in question; and
secondly, it should not be possible to make an
effective adjudication in the absence of such a party.
.....
6. The dispute involved in the case at hand is
whether there has been any unauthorized
development and whether there has been any
deviation from the approved plan. It is for the CDA
authorities to adjudicate that aspect and come to a
finding. The applicant for intervention has no role to
play in the adjudication, and therefore, was neither a
necessary or a proper party in the proceeding. Both
the Secretary and the Commissioner have lost sight
of this aspect and illegally accepted prayer for
intervention., Prayer for intervention in the writ
application is rejected."
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant stated that Respondent
No.1 has filed a suit impleading the present Appellant as party.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that on nearly identical facts
this Court has in Smt. Khirodini Sahoo v. State of Orissa
(supra)has rejected a similar prayer. Accordingly, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order of the learned
Single Judge.
// 4 //
6. The W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2017 will now be placed before the
roster Bench of the learned Single Judge for directions on 6th
December,2022.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
B.C.Mohanty
