Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Rout vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 11 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A No.2230 of 2023
Ramesh Chandra Rout ..... Appellant
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
11.10.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.
3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal seeking to set aside
the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.25034 of 2023,
by which learned Single Judge, while declining to entertain the
writ petition, has observed that if the appellant advised, he may
find out the other mechanism available for the purpose.
4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that Jagannath Bidyapitha, Balijhari has been
included in 5T Scheme for development. Respondents no.3 to 6
have taken steps for constructing the School Gate and road on the
land of the appellant bearing Hal Plat No.314 measuring an area of
Ac.0.04 decimals and Ac.0.06 decimals out of the adjourning Plot
No.315. Therefore, the appellant made a protest before the
authorities not to make any construction on his land, but the
authorities replied that the same is a Government land and the
record of right of the said plot does not stand in his name. It is
further contended that in view of judgment of the apex Court in
Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC
569, this Court has jurisdiction under Articles-300-A and 21 of the
Constitution of India to interfere with the right to property of a
person instead of granting liberty to approach the civil Court.
Thereby, learned Single Judge has committed gross error apparent
on the face of the record so as to cause interference of this Court at
this stage.
5. Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-respondents contended that the land in
question is recorded in the name of the State. Though the
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack
passed order and the same has been implemented, the appellant
disputes such fact contending that the same has not been correctly
implemented. Now, the road is going to be constructed on the
Government land and the appellant has no right, title and interest
over the property, because the ROR is in the name of the
Government. If the appellant has any right over the said property,
he may pursue his remedy before the civil court. Since disputed
question of fact is involved in this case, learned Single Judge has
rightly passed the order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No.25034 of
2023 directing the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that
the appellant claims to be the owner of Plot No.314 measuring an
area of Ac.0.04 decimals and part of Hal Plot No.315 under Hal
Khata No.100 measuring Ac.0.06 decimals out of Ac.0.64
decimals. Pursuant to order passed by the Commissioner, Land
Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack, the land was to be
included in the plot of the petitioner and, as such, the same has not
been done. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended
that the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and
Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack has been implemented and learned
counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the said order
has been implemented erroneously. More so, the ratio decided in
Vidya Devi (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of
the appellant is absolutely distinguishable because in the said case
the petitioner therein had got absolute right over the property.
Therefore, the apex Court, while considering the grievance of the
petitioner therein, came to a definite conclusion that the right to
property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution
(Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be
a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. There is no
dispute with regard to the ratio decided by the apex Court, but in
the present case, ownership of the land is in dispute because in one
hand the appellant claims that the land belongs to him and on the
other hand, the State Counsel states that land is in the name of the
Government.
7. Since disputed question of fact is involved, learned Single
Judge has rightly passed the order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.(C)
No.25034 of 2023. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said order. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to
pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the
same stands dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: orissa high court
Date: 12-Oct-2023 10:31:13
