Orissa High Court
M/S. Lingaraj Infrastructure Private … vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 March, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
M/s. Lingaraj Infrastructure Private Ltd. Bhubaneswar.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Dash, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv.
(For Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3)
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA
(For the Opp. Party Nos.1 & 4)
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate.
(For the intervenor-petitioner)
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 1 of 22
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERADate of Hearing: 10.02.2025 :: Date of Order : 10.03.2025
O RDER
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.–
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing (setting aside) an order dated 16.01.2024
(Annexure-1) passed by the Opposite Party No.3(City Planner,
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar) under
Section 92 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in
short ODA Act) and to direct the Opposite Parties issuing a writ of
mandamus to drop all the consequential proceedings arising out
of the said proceeding under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a private limited
company engaged in real estate development. The petitioner
company and one Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Shyam
Shree/Partner Developer) purchased two adjacent plots vide Plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 respectively under Khata
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 2 of 22
Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 forming an area of Ac.0.650 decimalsin Mouza-Patia, Bhubaneswar in the year 2010 through two
separate sale deeds (Annexure-2 series) for the real estate
development purposes.
Since the date of their above purchase, the petitioner and its
partner M/s. Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd are the lawful
owners and in possession over plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921. The petitioner and its partner Shyam Shree
Residency Pvt. Ltd both have mutated to their aforesaid
purchased plots to their names and after mutation, separate
R.o.Rs have already been prepared in their names under Khata
Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 (as per Annexure-3). The total area of
both the plots is Ac.0.650 Decimals.
3. The petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree Residency
Pvt. Ltd made an application before the Opposite Party No.3(City
Planner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar) for
an approval of their building plan for construction of a
commercial building over their plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in
Mouza-Patia. So, as per the requirement of Opposite Party No.3,
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 3 of 22
the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) submitted a
demarcation report through its letter dated 26.12.2014 vide
Annexure-4 confirming the boundaries of the above two plots vide
plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 on the basis of
measurement by Revenue Inspector in presence the intervenor-
petitioner and others. Then, in response to the letter dated
29.08.2017 vide Annexure-5 of Opposite Party No.3, the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) vide its letter
No.10984 dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure-6) submitted report before
the Opposite Party No.3 confirming the identity of plot Nos.
516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 along with its demarcation
indicating lawful possession of the petitioner and its partner
Shyam Shree Residency Pvt. Ltd over the same. Thereafter, again
on the asking of Opp. Party No.3, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
as per its letter dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure-8) submitted report
stating about the possession of the petitioner and its partner
M/s. Shyam Shree Residency Private Limited over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 after its proper demarcation.
Then, through letter dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure-9) Opp. Party
No.3 requested Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.4) to
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 4 of 22
confirm the possession of the petitioners and its partner over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata No.474/4108 and
474/4107 on the basis of the demarcation made. So, as per letter
dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure-10), the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
(Opp. Party No.4) confirmed the possession of the petitioner and
its partner M/s. Shyam Shree over plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921 in Mouza-Patia on the basis of the demarcation
made.
4. After taking all the above annexures vide Annexure Nos.4 to
10 along with other materials required under law as per the
provisions of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 into consideration, the
Opposite Party No.3 approved the building plan of the petitioner
and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree as per letter
No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11) under
Section 16 (3) of ODA Act, 1982 and granted permission to the
petitioner to carry out developments/constructions of
LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping center) commercial building over
plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata
Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia indicating the
parameters & conditions in the said Annexure-11.
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 5 of 22
5. On being authorized by the Opp. Party No.3 as per
Annexure-11, the petitioner and its partner M/s. Shyam Shree
carried out construction of their commercial building over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata Nos.474/4108 &
474/4107 in Mouza-Patia.
While the petitioner and its partner were continuing with
the constructions over the plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921
under Khata Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia, on the
complaint of a third party namely, Tanwir Dar Ali Khan (who is
the intervenor-petitioner in this writ petition), the Opposite Party
No.3 issued a letter vide letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024
(Annexure-1) directing the petitioner to stop construction on plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 alleging that said construction
is unauthorized and suspended the permission for construction
granted by it through Letter No. ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022
(Annexure-11) stating about its immediate effect assigning the
reasons in the said Annexure-1 that,
“when Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar communicated through its
letter No.15023 dated 08.12.2023 that, the physical possession
of the case plots vide plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 in
Mouza-Patia is difficult to ascertain, as original lease map is not
available in Tahasil Office, Bhubaneswar. Both the parties,
Tanwir Dar Ali Khan and Saket Kumar Agarwal, claiming
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 6 of 22
possession over one land for Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921
is civil in nature, both parties claiming possession over the
same land may approach the Civil Court to prove their
possession over the case land. Hence, the matter over case land
is in dispute regarding possession.
Hence, in exercise of the provision prescribed under
Section 92 of the Odisha Development Authority Act, 1982, you
are directed to stop unauthorized construction over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and the permission issued
vide letter No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022 (Annexure-11)
is hereby suspended with immediate effect.”
6. On being aggrieved with the said order/letter dated
16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) the petitioner approached this Hon’ble
Courts by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting
aside) that Annexure-1 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on the
ground that, the Opposite Parties have no authority or
jurisdiction under law to stop the legally authorized
constructions over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 made
by the petitioner as per the approved plan and lawful permission
through Annexure-11 granted by the same Opp. Party No.3. As
such, the Opposite Party No.3 is estopped under law to issue
such letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the
petitioner indirectly withdrawing/recalling its own
order/permission vide Annexure-11 for construction. For which,
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 7 of 22
the issuance of Annexure-1 by the Opposite Party No.3 to the
petitioner is contrary to law and the same is liable to be quashed.
7. When a third party, i.e. Tanwir Dar Ali Khan tried to
intervene in this writ petition between the petitioner and the
Opposite Parties, then, as per Order dated 04.10.2024 passed in
I.A. No.4031 of 2024, liberty was given to the engaged learned Sr.
Counsel of the intervenor-petitioner Tanwir Dar Ali Khan to
participate in the hearing of the arguments in this writ.
8. Accordingly, I have already heard from the learned Senior
Counsels for the petitioner, learned AGA for the Opposite Party
Nos.1 & 4, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3
and the learned Sr. Counsel for the intervenor-petitioner.
9. The Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have stated in their counter
affidavit challenging the writ petition of the petitioner on the
ground that, the writ petition of the petitioner assailing the
impugned order (Annexure-1) of Opp. Party No.3 is pre-mature,
for which, the petitioner must wait till the completion of the
proceeding under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 before the
Opposite Party No.3.
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 8 of 22
10. According to the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, when it has been
clearly envisaged in the condition No.9 of Annexure-11 that, in
case of any dispute arising out of land record or in respect of right,
title, interest after this permission is granted, the permission so
granted shall be treated as automatically cancelled during the
period of dispute and when the civil dispute in respect of the case
land is pending between the petitioner and intervenor-petitioner,
then, permission for construction granted through Annexure-11
to the petitioner was cancelled lawfully by Opp. Party No.3 as per
Annexure-1 for violation of the condition No.9. For which, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed
against Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
11. The intervenor-petitioner (Tanwir Dar Ali Khan) submitted
an affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner in his
writ petition stating that, the petitioner is not in legal possession
over plot No.516/1759. The demarcation of plot No.516/1759 by
the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is not correct and the demarcation
reports along with its sketch maps submitted before the Opposite
Party No.3 are forged documents. The petitioner has used and
attached the sketch map of plot No.516/1724 against plot
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 9 of 22
No.516/1759. For which, entire confusion has been created by
the petitioner. The petitioner and its partner being influential
person, they are trying to harass him. The petitioner’s plot is
distinct from his plot No.516/1724. Suit vide C.S. No.678 of 2013
has been filed by him against Silver Stone Builders Private
limited and Mahabir Sahoo & Sons Resorts Private Limited for a
decree of declaration in respect of plot No.516/1724 under Khata
No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia, wherein status quo order has been
granted in favour of the petitioner. Another suit vide C.S.
No.8261 of 2015 has been filed by M/s. Mahabir Sahoo & Sons
Resorts Private Limited against the petitioner and another for
permanent injunction in respect of plot No.516/1724 under
mutated Khata No.474/4447 corresponding to Original Khata
No.474/32, wherein, status quo order has also been passed.
According to him (intervenor-petitioner), when the actual
identification of plot Nos.516/1724 is in dispute before the Civil
Court as it has been alleged by him that, the petitioner of this
writ petition has attached the sketch map of his plot
No.516/1724 against plot No.516/1759, then, under these
situations, in absence of proper identification of above plots in
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 10 of 22
dispute, the issuance of Annexure-1 by the Opposite Party No.3
to the petitioner to stop construction over plot No.516/1759 and
516/1759/4921 as well as suspension of permission for
construction cannot be held as illegal. For which, the writ
petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavits and counter
affidavits of the petitioner, Opposite Parties & intervenor-
petitioner, the crux of this writ petition for adjudication are:
(I) Whether the dispute alleged by the intervenor-petitioner before
the Opposite Party No.3 in respect of the boundary of plot
No.516/1724 will amount to contravention of condition No.9 of
the permission for construction granted by the Opposite Party
No.3 as per Annexure-11 according to the provisions laid
down in Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982?
(II) Whether the Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3 being the planning authority
functioning under ODA Act, 1982 were authorized under law
to issue the letter (Annexure-1) directing the petitioner to stop
construction over plot No.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 in
Mouza-Patia as per Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982 alleging
demarcation/boundary dispute on the complain of a third party
i.e. Tanwir Dar Ali Khan much after allowing/granting
permission to the petitioner through Annexure-11 for
construction of shopping complex on plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921, while the petitioner was continuing with such
constructions over the same?
(III) Whether the third party, who was the complainant before the
Opp. Party No.3 has locus standi to be added as an intervenorWP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 11 of 22
in a challenge to stop construction under Section 92 of the
ODA Act, 1982?
13. When the above three (3) formulated points/issues between
the parties of this writ petition are interlinked having ample
nexus with each other, then, all the above three points are taken
up together analogously for their discussions hereunder:
Section 92(1) of the ODA Act, 1982 provides that,
“where any development in any area has been
commenced in contravention of the development plan or
without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in
Section 15 or in contravention of any conditions subject to
which such permission, approval or sanction has been
granted, the Authority or any officer of the Authority
empowered it by in this behalf, may, in addition to any
prosecution that may be instituted under this Act, make an
order requiring the development to be discontinued on and
from the date of the service of the order, and such order
shall be complied with accordingly.”
The above sub-clause (1) of Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982
clarifies that, under the following three conditions, the authorities
under ODA Act, 1982 can stop constructions and such
conditions are:
“(i) when the development has been commenced in
contravention of the development plan,WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 12 of 22
(ii) when the development has been commenced without
the permission, approval or sanction of the competent
authority and,
(iii) When the development is in contravention of any
conditions subject to which, such permission, approval or
sanction has been granted.”
14. It is the own case of the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 that, the
Annexure-1 issued by them (Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3) to the
petitioner to stop construction is not coming within the purview
of above condition Nos.(i) & (ii) of Section 92 of the ODA Act,
1982. Because, it is not the case of the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3
that, the development has been commenced by the petitioner in
contravention of the development plan or such development is
without the permission/approval/sanction of the competent
authority.
15. Now, it will be seen, whether the Annexure-1 issued by the
Opp. Party No.3 to the petitioner to stop construction is coming
within the purview of the above condition No.(iii) of Section 92 of
the ODA Act, 1982 or not.
16. In condition No.9 of Annexure-11 granted by the Opp. Party
Nos.2 & 3 in favour of the petitioner for construction of
LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping centre) commercial building over
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 13 of 22
plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 under Khata
Nos.474/4108 & 474/4107 in Mouza-Patia, it has been
specifically reflected that,
“In case of any dispute arising out of land record or in respect
of right, title, interest after this permission is granted, the
permission so granted shall be treated as automatically cancelled
during the period of dispute.”
17. It is forthcoming from the own affidavit of the intervenor-
petitioner that, he along with his family members are joint
owners of Ac.0.500 decimals of plot No.516/1724 under Khata
No.474/23 in Mouza-Patia and the said plot No.516/1724 is a
separate/different/distinct/independent plot in the R.o.R. as well
as in the map.
The disputed land in CS. No.678 of 2013 is plot
No.516/1724 under Khata No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia. The
disputed land in C.S. No.8261 of 2015 is also plot No.516/1724
under Mutation Khata No.474/4447 corresponding to Khata
No.474/32 in Mouza-Patia.
As per Annexure-11, the building plan of the petitioner for
commercial complex over plot No.516/1759 under Khata
No.474/4108 and Plot No.516/1759/4921 under Khata
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 14 of 22
No.474/4107 in Mouza-Patia was approved by the Opposite Party
No.3 on dated 26.09.2022 as per Annexure-11. On the basis of
which, the developments/constructions over plot No.516/1759 &
plot No.516/1759/4921 were carried out by the petitioner
authorizedly.
As such, plot Nos.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921 in respect
of which, the building plan of the petitioner was approved by the
Opp. Party No.3 as per Annexure-11 are not the disputed
properties of any of the above two civil suits vide C.S. No.678 of
2013 and C.S. No.8261 of 2015. Therefore, the above two civil
suits vide C.S. No.678 of 2013 and C.S. No.8261 of 2015 are
unconnected with plot Nos.516/1759 and 516/1759/4921
contained in Annexure-11.
18. Now, the question arises, when the
developments/constructions were carried out by the petitioner
over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 authorisedly on the
basis of the plan duly approved by the Opposite Party No.3 as per
Annexure-11 under Section 16(3) of the ODA Act, 1982, then,
whether in the midst of such developments/constructions, the
Opp. Party No.3 was authorized under law to issue the
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 15 of 22
order/letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the
petitioner to stop further developments/constructions on the said
plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 on the complaint of the
intervenor-petitioner before it alleging boundary dispute in
respect of his plot No.516/1724.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon’ble Courts & Apex Court in the ratio of the
following decisions:
I. In a case between Shree Sai Reality Through
Partner Shri. Sandeep Dindayal AAgarval and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
reported in 2019 SCC Online (Bom) 1421 “The
planning authority cannot enter into the private
dispute and more so when the dispute
relates/touches the boundaries of the lands it is
Civil Court, which alone has jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon and answer the issue. In the case
in hand, planning authority ventured to act upon
complaint of third party through Revenue
Authorities. It is not the Corporation’s case that the
petitioners commenced the development unlawfully
and/or the building permission has been granted in
consequence of any material misrepresentation or
fraudulent statements made by the petitioner in the
notice or information furnished under Section 253 or
254 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.
That even, otherwise, maps which were produced
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 16 of 22
for seeking development permission were drawn by
the Revenue Officials, therefore, even assuming that
these Maps are incorrect, fault cannot be attributed
to the petitioners and they can’t be penalized for it.
In view of the facts of the case and for the reasons
stated, we answer the question No.1 to hold that,
the Corporation being planning authority was not
within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of alleged
boundary dispute nor was justified in law in
restraining the petitioners from continuing with the
construction, until the boundary is fixed and settled
by the Revenue Authorities.
As a result of the above discussion, the
stop work order of the Corporation dated 24th
January 2019 is set aside. In so far as order dated
24.01.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Land
Records is concerned, petitioners are at liberty to
challenge it, in accordance with law, and we decline
to interfere with it. We clarify that the rival versions
on the factual dispute about measurement,
boundary etc. are expressly kept open. Our order in
this petition does not render any opinion on the
same. (Para Nos.18 & 19)
II. In a case between Smt. Khirodini Sahoo Vs.
State of Orissa, represented through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department &
Others reported in 1996 (I) OLR 387 that, for
removal of unauthorized construction, action to be
initiated on the basis of information of any
functionary or employee or on the basis of complaint
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 17 of 22
of any person. The dispute would be confined to the
person against whom complaint is made and the
authorities under the Act. A third party has no locus
standi to be added as party or intervenor. If the
presence of a third party is necessary for
adjudication, he may be added as party. Distinction
between necessary party and proper party,
indicated. A person who has no interest in the
property cannot be added as a party. If he seeks
any remedy, he has to go to Civil Court. (Para Nos.4
& 5)
III. In a case between Mohinder Singh Gill &
Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi & Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC
405 that, action to be judged by the reasons stated
while making the order and supplementary reasons
in the shape of affidavits to be excluded. (Para
No.8)
IV. In a case between Kutchi Lal Rameswar Ashram
Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr. Velji
Devshi Patel Vs. Collector, Haridwar & Others
reported in 2017 (4) CCC 26 (SC) that,
Administrative Authorities including the Collector
cannot adjudicate upon matters of title involving
civil disputes. It is in the domain of competent Civil
Court as per Section 9 of the CPC, 1908. (Para
No.21).
19. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble
Courts and Apex Court, the authorities under ODA Act, 1982 i.e.
Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, & City
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 18 of 22
Planner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3) have no authority or jurisdiction to enter into the
private disputes or to decide the inter se private disputes of the
citizens.
20. When as per letter No.ANB/4861/2022/DT.26.09.2022
(Annexure-11), the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 had approved the
building plan of the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the ODA
Act, 1982 after being confirmed/satisfied with the demarcation
and possession of the petitioner over plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921 on the reports of the appropriate lawful official
authority for the same i.e. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party
No.4) time and again and had permitted the petitioner for
carrying out the construction of LB+UB+G+3 storey (shopping
center) commercial building over plot Nos.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921 and when on the basis of the said authorization,
the petitioner was carrying out developments/constructions over
plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921, one year and three
months thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 should not have
issued letter No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to the
petitioner directing him to stop the construction over plot
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 19 of 22
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 suspending permission for
construction granted through Annexure-11 alleging that, “it is
difficult to ascertain the physical possession of plot No.516/1759 &
516/1759/4921 due to non-availability of original lease map in the
Tahasil Office, Bhubaneswar and the nature of dispute between
the parties is civil in nature and the matter over case land is in
dispute regarding possession” indirectly recalling its own
order/permission granted through Annexure-11, when the
petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 had already acted upon
by the Annexure-11 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 to the
petitioner.
For which, the Opposite Party No.3 is estopped under law to
deny the validity and binding effect of his own letter/permission
vide Annexure-11. Because, the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 being
the responsible authorities as well as model litigants, they (Opp.
Party Nos.2 & 3) are not permitted under law to “blow hot and
cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate” at the
same time.
Therefore, the planning authority i.e. Opposite Party No.3
was not competent under law to issue Annexure-1 to the
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 20 of 22
petitioner directing the petitioner to stop construction over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and the Opp. Party No.3 was
also not competent under law to suspend the permission for
construction granted through Annexure-11. Because, the
constructions, which were carrying out by the petitioner over plot
Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 were not unauthorized/illegal
constructions. Rather the said constructions were legally
authorized constructions. The disputes raised by the intervenor-
petitioner is not coming within the purview of Section 92 of the
ODA Act, 1982 authorizing the Opposite Party No.3 to direct the
petitioner through order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) to stop
construction over plot Nos.516/1759 & 516/1759/4921 and to
suspend the permission for construction granted lawfully on the
ground of private boundary dispute raised by the intervenor-
petitioner.
21. Therefore, the order dated 16.01.2024 issued through letter
No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-1) by the Opp. Party No.3
to the petitioner cannot be sustainhable under law. The same is
liable to be quashed through this writ petition filed by the
petitioner.
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 21 of 22
As such, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioner.
22. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed
on contest.
23. The order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Opp. Party No.3
under Annexure-1 communicated to the petitioner through letter
No.2705 dated 16.01.2024 is quashed/set aside.
Due to quashing of Annexure-1, the Opp. Nos.2 & 3 are
directed to drop all the consequential proceedings arising out of
Annexure-1 under Section 92 of the ODA Act, 1982.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 10 .03. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Senior Stenographer to
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.C. Behera.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 12-Mar-2025 19:26:10
WP(C) No.2765 of 2024 Page 22 of 22
