Orissa High Court
Rabindra Kumar Singh vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.22316 of 2022
Rabindra Kumar Singh .... Petitioner(s).
Mr.S.K.Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr.S.Ghose, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
22.09.2022
Order No.
01 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Taking this Court to the background of the case through the
series of developments once in dismissal of a writ petition in
O.J.C.No.7386 of 1999 along with Writ Petition (Civil) No.13313 of
2015 appear to have been moved by Fakir Charan Singh and after
his death in pendency of the litigation, represented by L.Rs. of Phakir
Charan Singh, From the cause title at Annexure-2 and affirmation of
this Court's order, a judgment in the Hon'ble Apex Court in disposal
of Civil Appeal No.(S)4588 and 4589 of 2018, cause title both
shows Phakir Charan Singh, petitioner being dead, the case was
represented by his L.Rrs. Looking to the cause title portion here, this
Court nowhere finds Rabindra Kumar Singh is the Son of Late
Sanatan Singh party to the above litigation. Petitioner through
Annexures-2 and 3 asserts his right, title and interest over the
property. Through the writ petition, it is alleged that even though
petitioner having right, title and interest over the disputed property,
Cuttack Municipal Corporation is lying a road on the land of the
petitioenr. Petitioner appears to have already made a representation
// 2 //
to the Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation vide Annexure-
4 on 19.08.2022 asking the competent authority to pay due
compensation to the petitioner for the area constructed as road. From
the representation, it becomes clear that road is already constructed
and petitioner since at page 31 of the brief seeks compensation for
illegal use of the competent authority of his land as road. The writ
petition involves a prayer directing opposite party to stop of any sort
of construction appears to be wholly contrary to the contents of
request in the representation of the petitioner's request involving the
representation of the petitioner at least from page 31 clearly
disclosing road construction already completed and petitioner wants
compensation, the prayer in the writ petition is not in consonance
with the representation of the petitioner.
3. In the circumstance, this Court finds the writ petition is not
entertainable even on the asking of the petitioner to the competent
authority to consider his such representation. This Court again finds
the competent authority has no jurisdiction to take a call on the right,
title and interest of the petitioner. For the own submission of the
petitioner through his representation at Anenxure-4 lying down of the
road is already completed and petitioner wants due compensation,
petitioner is permitted to approach the competent court of law seeking
damage in the event he has already his right, title and interest over
the disputed property.
4. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biswanath Rath)
sks Judge
