Orissa High Court
Rama Chandra Bera vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 16 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3299 of 2025
Rama Chandra Bera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Prasanta Kumar
Sahoo
-versus-
1) State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Smt. Manorama Bera Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
Mr. Satyanarayan
Mishra, Advocate for
the O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.10.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/
Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No.2-Informant and learned counsel for the State-
Opposite Party No.1. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the
prayer made therein.
3. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has
been filed by the Petitioner seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court to quash the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak in Crl. Misc. Case No.06/2022
under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. which has been confirmed vide
judgment/order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2023.
4. The factual background leading to filing of the application under
Section 133 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2 is that
the Opposite Party No.2 along with her family members are residing in
the residential house over Khata No.128, Plot No.100 and 101 of
Village-Bijayapatana under Bansada P.S. of Bhadrak district. It is
alleged that the Petitioner has illegally and unlawfully constructed a
fish go-down in front of their residential house near their personal road
which is connecting to the village Panchayat road and the same has
been recorded in Government Khata vide Mutation Case No.1947 of
2019 as per the order dated 24.06.2019 of the Additional
Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Balasore vide order dated
09.01.2019. A copy of order dated 09.01.2019 has been filed along
with this application and marked as Annexure-3.
5. Opposite Party No.2, vide her petition under Section 133 of
Cr.P.C., has further alleged that despite her objection, the Petitioner
continues to store fish in the fish go-down constructed over the
Government land. It is also alleged that he has been discharging the
waste water of the fish go-down to the village pond situated nearby
their house and throwing garbage and waste materials into the village
pond as well as into the public drain. As such, it was alleged that the
Petitioner is creating nuisance in the locality and causing
inconvenience to the local public. Such conduct has created health
hazard in the locality. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 filed an
application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak for necessary protection.
6. The record further reveals that the learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bhadrak, vide order dated 14.7.2022 under Annexure-1
series, passed an order directing the Petitioner to remove the fish go-
down from the Government land within seven days from the date of
receipt of such order. Accordingly, the O.I.C. of Bansada P.S. was
directed to promulgate such order dated 14.07.2022. Thereafter, since
the land in question was disputed by the Petitioner, i.e. claiming that it
was not government land rather it stands recorded in the name of his
late father, the learned SDM, Bhadrak called for a joint inquiry report
from the Agriculture Office, Chandbali, R.I., Panchutikiri. Then on
04.07.2023, the learned SDM, taking into consideration the documents
filed and the report of the OIC, Bansada P.S, held that the ingredients
under section 133 Cr.P.C are well made out and ordered the Petitioner
to remove the fish go-down and cowshed from the said land within
seven days.
7. Being aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2023, the present
Petitioner preferred a revision before the learned District & Sessions
Judge, Bhadrak, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.23 of
2023. On perusal of the order passed by the learned revisional
authority dated 04.08.2025, it appears that the revisional authority after
a detailed discussion and by virtue of the reasoned order, has dismissed
the revision petition. The revisional authority has held that the land in
question stands recorded in the name of the Government and in the
Anabadi Khata. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned SDM,
Bhadrak has been sustained by the revisional authority. The Petitioner
being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned
S.D.M., Bhadrak at Annexure-4 and the order dated 04.08.2025 passed
by the revisional court at Annexure-6 has approached this Court by
filing the present application with a prayer to quash both the orders.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned revisional
court, the order dated 09.01.2019 at Annexure-3 was passed by the
learned Additional Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation,
Balasore in Settlement Revision Petition Case No.04/2017 which was
assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11380 of 2019 and W.P.(C)
No.18685 of 2019 by the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.2. On
perusal of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by a Single Bench of this
Court, it appears that the order dated 09.01.2019 passed in Settlement
Revision Petition Case No.04 of 2017 has been set aside and the matter
has been remanded back to the court of Additional Commissioner,
Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (which was subsequently
modified as Additional Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation,
Bhadrak) for disposal afresh after providing an opportunity to both
sides.
9. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the
Petitioner stated before this Court that the very basis of initiating a
proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. gets demolished once order
dated 09.01.2019 passed in Settlement Revision Petition Case No.04 of
2017 has been set aside by a Bench of this Court in the above writ
applications. He further contended that a proceeding under Section 133
of Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated in respect of a private land. Since the
settlement of the land in favour of the Government in Anabadi Khata
has been set aside by this Court and the matter is sub-judice before the
Additional Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Bhadrak, an
application filed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 133 of
Cr.P.C. has become a nullity in the eye of law.
10. In reply to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party
No.2 contended that the Petitioner is causing nuisance in the locality
and the same has also created health hazard to the people living in the
locality. Therefore, the learned S.D.M., Bhadrak is well within its
power and authority to pass an order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to
prevent such public nuisance. He further contended that setting aside
the order dated 09.01.2019 will have no impact on the order passed by
the learned S.D.M., Bhadrak, which was confirmed by the learned
revisional court. Therefore, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2 wholeheartedly supported the order passed by the learned S.D.M.,
Bhadrak and eventually confirmed by the revisional court. As such, it
was prayed that the application being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the
order passed by the learned S.D.M., Bhadrak as well as the
confirmation of such order by the learned revisional court. Learned
counsel for the State also prayed that the application, being devoid of
merit, be outrightly dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
the materials on record, this Court observes that being aggrieved by the
conduct of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 filed an application
under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to prevent public nuisance caused over a
piece of Government land. Therefore, the very foundation of the
application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was the piece of the
Government land which was settled in favour of the Government and
recorded in Anabadi Khata pursuant to order dated 09.01.2019 passed
by the learned Additional Commissioner, Settlement and
Consolidation, Balasore in Settlement Revision Petition Case
No.04/2017.
13. However, subsequently order dated 09.01.2019 having been set
aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11380 of 2019 and W.P.(C)
No.18685 of 2019 vide order dated 18.02.2025, this Court is of the
considered view that the very foundation of the proceeding under
Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is demolished. Since the foundation of both the
impugned orders dated 09.01.2019 and such order having been set
aside by this Court, the very basis of the impugned order is lost and
such order has become a nullity in the eye of law. In such view of the
matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders
under Annexures-4 and 6 passed by the learned S.D.M., Bhadrak and
the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhadrak respectively.
Accordingly, the same are set aside.
14. Finally, while disposing of the present application, liberty is
granted to the Opposite Party No.2 to file a fresh application under
Section 133 of Cr.P.C. in the event the land is recorded in the name of
the Government in remanded Settlement Revision Petition No.04 of
2017. Moreover, it is also open to the Opposite Party No.2 to move an
application under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. in the event the Petitioner
causes any public nuisance independent of the land in question.
15. With the aforesaid observation and direction the CRLMC stands
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis AECH
