Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar vs Amrit Ruturaj on 18 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.3725 of 2025
Dillip Kumar
Samantaray ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Pal, Advocate
-versus-
Amrit Ruturaj,
Collector and D.M.
Khordha and others ..... Opp. Parties
Suvalaxmi Devi,
Addl Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.08.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioner Dillip Kumar Samantray for initiating the
contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act
against the opposite parties for the willful violation and
non-implementation of the Judgment dated 21.02.2024
in W.P.(C) No. 3385 of 2024 after receiving information
regarding encroachment of the Government Land with a
further direction to the opposite parties to take
appropriate action on the application dated 10.09.2024 in
accordance with the said Judgment in a time bound
manner.
On perusal of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court which is annexed to the contempt
petition as Annexure-1, it appears that in the operative
part of the order, it has been held as follows:-
"25. Accordingly, we deem it proper to issue
general directions to be followed by all concerned in
the following terms:
(i) Once a District Magistrate or Sub-
Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate, specially empowered in this
regard by the State Government, receives an
information, on the basis of a report of a
police officer or otherwise, that condition
precedent for exercise of power under sub-
Section (i) of Section 133 of the Code are
present, the Magistrate shall at once make a
conditional order for removal of obstruction
or nuisance from public place and it will be
the bounden duty of the person--who may be
a natural person or a juristic person, such as,
a Municipal Body or a Gram Panchayat--to
either comply with the order or appear in the
proceeding and, upon appearance of the
proceedee, the Magistrate shall be duty
bound to ask the proceedee if he (the
proceedee) wishes to deny the existence of
facts leading to the conditional order and if
the proceedee denies existence of any
unlawful obstruction or nuisance on any
public place or from any way, river or
channel, which is or may be lawfully used by
the public, and gives reliable evidence in
support of such denial, the Magistrate shall
stay further proceedings until a competent
court decides; but if the proceedee fails to
give any reliable evidence in respect of denial
of the existence of the facts leading to
making of conditional order, the Magistrate
shall order the proceedee to comply with the
conditional order and, if the conditional order
is not complied with and obeyed, penal
consequences, as embodied in Section 188 of
the Penal Code, shall follow.
(ii) It will be the duty of the Chief Executive
Officer or any other Officer, specially
authorized by him/Head of the local body, by
whatever name he may be called, to inform
or cause to be informed tire District
Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any
other Magistrate, specially empowered in this
behalf by the State Government, as regards
existence of obstruction /nuisance and other
factors, enumerated under Section 133 (1) of
the Code. The Officer-in-charge of the
concerned police station shall also have
similar duty to inform the Magistrate
concerned under Section 133 of the Code. In
the event, any public nuisance or unlawful
obstruction of the nature, as provided under
section 133 (1) of the Code, is found to be
existing without any information to the
concerned Magistrate, the Officer-in-charge
of the concerned police station and the Chief
Executive Officer or any other Officer,
authorized on his behalf of the local body,
shall be jointly responsible for inaction and
will be liable for disciplinary action
accordingly.
(iii) The Magistrate, upon receiving
information, in the manner as aforesaid, shall
proceed at once in accordance with Section
133 (1) of the Code and pass appropriate
order as required of him under the said
provision. Any inaction or dereliction of duty
by the Magistrate in this regard shall make
him liable for disciplinary action.
(iv) A conditional order, if not objected to, or
an order, which has been made absolute,
shall have to be obeyed by all concerned and
any disobedience of the order shall attract
penal provisions of section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code.
(v) The Tahasildar, within the meaning of
section 3(c) of the OPLE Act, shall also be
duty-bound to act in accordance with the
provisions of the OPLE Act once any case of
unauthorized occupation of Government
property is brought to his notice.
(vi) This order must be followed with utmost
scruples and without any demur. Any person,
who is found to be not complying with the
present order, shall be liable for
disciplinary/criminal action apart from
contempt of this Court".
It appears that the petitioner submitted an
application under section 152 of BNSS Act, 2023 which
corresponds to section 133 of the Cr.P.C. for removal of
obstruction or nuisance from the Government land over
Khata No.687, plot No.834, Area Ac. 29.07 dec. in
Kumbharbasta mouza under Khordha Tahasil in the
District of Khordha. However, his grievance is that no
auction has been taken on such application even though
more than eleven months have been passed in the
meantime.
Learned counsel for the State seeks some time to
obtain instruction about the status of application
submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-3 series.
As prayed for, list this matter in the week
commencing from 1st September 2025.
A free copy of this order be granted to the learned
counsel for the State.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Pravakar
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
