Orissa High Court
Senior Citizen Association vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9229 of 2025
Senior Citizen Association, .... Petitioner
Sambalpur
Mr. Biplab P.B. Bahali, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 18.06.2025
W.P.(C) No.9229 of 2025 & I.A. No.5354 of 2025
01. 1. The instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) is taken out by the petitioner alleging the action of
the Government in widening the road in question without following
the statutory provisions applicable in this regard.
2. It is averred in the instant writ petition that while widening
the road, the Government has transgressed upon the private land
owned by the inhabitants of the said locality without adhering to the
provision of law. It is further pleaded that the action of the
Government is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in
case of In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash, reported in 2024 INSC 863,
wherein a 3-Judge Bench unequivocally laid down the law relating
to a road widening project. It is held that before the Government
embarks his journey on widening the road, it must ascertain not only
the existing width of the road on the basis of the official records but
must also carry out a survey/demarcation in order to ascertain
whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with
reference to the official records. It is further highlighted that in the
event the encroachment is found on the Government land, it is
imperative on the part of the Government to issue notice upon such
encroachers and initiate proceedings.
3. The aforesaid proceedings must be decided expeditiously
after giving an opportunity of hearing and by passing a speaking
order. In the event, the land owned by the individuals is required for
the purpose of widening the road, the appropriate acquisition
proceeding is required to be initiated and a reasonable compensation
so determined should be extended to those persons.
4. According to the petitioner, neither any survey is conducted
nor any notice is issued contemplating the encroachment case to be
initiated against the individuals but the Government officials are
banking upon completing the project of road widening and there is
an immediate threat of their dispossession from their respective land.
5. Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel
(ASC) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State submits that
in absence of any express instruction in this regard, she is not in a
position to apprise the Court of the real state of affairs.
6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
Manoj Tibrewal Akash (supra), unless the steps required to be taken
by the Government is undertaken, it is not open for the Government
to take the law in its hand and proceed for widening the road by
departing the proposition of law.
7. We, therefore, pass an interim order to the effect that in the
event, any encroachment is found after complying the mandatory
directions passed in the above reported judgment and any proceeding
is initiated, the eviction cannot be secured unless a final order is
passed in such proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the respective encroachers, if there be any.
8. List this matter on 25th June, 2025.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jun-2025 18:36:35
