Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 117 (ORI)

Ramchandra Samal v. State of Odisa

2021-03-13

B.P.ROUTRAY, S.MURALIDHAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. Since both the writ petitions are arising out of same cause of action and similar prayers have been made and they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 3. The writ petitions are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the grievance of the Petitioners is relating to diversion of R.D. road through Plot Nos. 917, 918 and 920 instead of Plot Nos. 962 and 1222 of Mouza-Tauntara under the Binjharpur Tahasil in the district of Jajpur. 4. The Rural Development (RD) Department has proposed construction of road from Sasanda to Baruna and it is the contention of the Petitioners that the said road passes between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222. Both these plots are Gochar lands of village Tauntara and are being used as playground. It is further contended that the road between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222 will bifurcate those compact patch into small parcels, thereby affecting the character of playground as well as Gochar kissam against the interests of villagers. So, by referring to the sketch map under Annexure-2 series, the Petitioners contend that if the road is allowed to be diverted through Plot Nos. 917, 918 and 920, the interests of the villagers would be saved. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Sub-Collector, Jajpur basing on the report of the R.I. Arei dated 30th September 2015, has recommended to the Executive Engineer, R.D. in support of such diversion of the road. 5. The Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No. 4, the Tahasildar, Binjharpur in its counter has refuted the contention of the Petitioners by stating that such diversion of road over Plot Nos.917, 918 and 920 is not possible as the said three plots are reserved for construction of veterinary dispensary. In this regard, the Record of Rights (RoRs) under Annexure-B/4 has been referred to. Plot No. 787 is pre-existing there, which is of kissam- Rasta. The Opposite Parties further contend that running of road between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222 will neither affect the Gochar characteristic of the lands nor will reduce the statutory requirement of such lands in the village. 6. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of Annexure-B/4 reveals that Plot Nos. 917, 918, 919 and 920 of kissam-Patita (wasteland) have been reserved for veterinary dispensary. 962 and 1222 will neither affect the Gochar characteristic of the lands nor will reduce the statutory requirement of such lands in the village. 6. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of Annexure-B/4 reveals that Plot Nos. 917, 918, 919 and 920 of kissam-Patita (wasteland) have been reserved for veterinary dispensary. It is also seen from Annexure-C/4 that a local inquiry had been conducted as per the direction of the Tahasildar through Revenue Supervisor, Binjharpur and Revenue Inspector, Arei on 28th May, 2020. The said inquiry reveals that the existing Plot No. 787 is of kissam-Rasta (Road), which found matching on spot verification that passes in between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222. The said inquiry report further reveals that two groups of villagers were present at the time of inquiry, amongst whom, the Petitioners’ group were opposing the proposed road between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222 the other group were supporting the same by opposing diversion of the same to Plot Nos. 917, 918 and 920. 7. Needless to mention here that a group of villagers have filed I.A. No. 13608 of 2020 praying for intervention as opposing to the prayer of the Petitioners for diversion of the road through Plot Nos. 917, 918 and 920. 8. Thus the claim of Petitioners that their contentions are in the interest of public is not found true in view of the dispute raised by other group of villagers who are supporting the proposed construction of road. 9. In such situation, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Moreover, when the road in Plot No. 787 is already pre-existing and running between Plot Nos. 962 and 1222, and Plot Nos. 917, 918 and 920 have been reserved for construction of veterinary dispensary in the RoRs, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the authority in the proposed manner of construction of road. 10. Accordingly, the contentions of the Petitioners are rejected and the writ Petitions are dismissed.