SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
Kshetra Mohan Rout - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others – Respondent 
W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2025
Decided on : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.A.Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.T.K.Dash, Addl. Government Advocate Mr.S.K.Dalei, Advocate Mr.D.Kanungo, Advocate

The state must diligently protect water bodies and thoroughly evaluate land status before permitting construction that may disrupt natural water flow, as outlined in the Odisha Irrigation Act.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Irrigation Act, 1959 - Section 12 - Land relinquishment for construction - Land recorded as Kissam 'Canal' was alienated for constructing a G.P. Office and Market Complex, triggering concerns over obstruction of water flow - Petitioner's claim of violation of statutory provisions leads to court's examination of due procedure followed by authorities regarding land use. (Paras 5-10)

(B) Statutory Compliance - The court observed that the government must protect water bodies, emphasizing the need for scrutiny over changes in land status from canal to construction. The site selection report lacked a basis for changing the nature of the land, warranting a fresh assessment. (Paras 12-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the government's order allowing construction on land previously designated as a canal, arguing that this would cause waterlogging and violate statutory provisions. The state claimed the land had lost its original status as a water body and was suitable for construction. (Paras 5-8)

Findings of Court:
The relinquishment order was set aside, and the government was directed to reconsider the situation of the land and its impact on water flow within two months. Construction was to be halted until a new decision was made. (Paras 16-17)

Issues: The main issues involved whether the land could be altered to accommodate construction without obstructing water flow and the validity of the state’s change of land status. (Paras 10-14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that the state has a duty to protect water bodies and that proper scrutiny of land use, especially in the wake of urbanization, is imperative to avoid environmental degradation. The lack of detailed reasoning in the Site Selection Committee's report necessitates a cautious approach in land alienation. (Paras 13-15)

Result: The order of relinquishment is set aside; the government is required to make a fresh decision.

Table of Content
1. challenging land relinquishment for construction. (Para 5)
2. arguments on land status and statutory compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. dispute over water flow obstruction. (Para 10 , 11)
4. duty to protect water bodies and ecological balance. (Para 13 , 14)
5. reconsideration of land status for construction permit. (Para 15 , 16)
6. order on construction pending government decision. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

I.A.No.2424 of 2026

1. Heard Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr.Dalai, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.8 and Mr.Kanungo, learned counsel for the Intervenors.

2. Upon hearing all the parties, the prayer for intervention is allowed.

3. The I.A. is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2025

4. Though this matter is listed under heading ‘Orders’ for consideration of I.A.No.1013 of 2026 regarding modification of order dated 23rd June 2025, but on the request and consent of the learned counsels for all the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal and the parties are heard accordingly.

5. Present writ petition has been filed by one of the resident of Lingipur mouza under Dahuli Police Station, Bhubaneswar praying to quash order 12th January 2024 (Annexure-2) of Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha relinquishing land measuring Ac.0.700 decimals of Kissam ‘Canal’ in Plot No.1313(p) under Khata No.757 of Mouza-Lingipur of Bhubaneswar Tahasil, in favour of Revenue and D.M. Department for subsequent alienation of the same in favour of P.R. & D.W. Department for construction of G.P. Office and Market Complex at Lingipur. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to protect and develop the canal existing on the said land and not to make any construction on it obstructing free flow of water.

6. As per the submission of the Petitioner, the land in question has been recorded as Kissam ‘Canal’ and permitting construction over a part of the same will obstruct free flow of water and further cause water logging in the locality. The Petitioner further contends that such alienation of land for the purpose of construction of G.P. building has been made in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Odisha Government Land Settlement Act and Rules, where the Lingipur Gram Panchayat is no more existing after inclusion of the same in Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as per draft notification dated 31st December 2025 inviting public objection in that respect.

7. The State has not filed any counter. On the other hand, Mr.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate contends that such decision to relinquish the land and further alienation of the same for the purpose of construction of G.P. building and Market Complex has been done by following due procedure of law and there was a site selection committee constituted consisting of several Government Officers including the Sub-Collector, Khordha. As per their proceeding dated 11th April 2025, the land schedule is suitable for the purpose of construction of G.P. building and the exact extent of land identified for construction is measuring Ac.0.252 decimals vide Plot No.1313/5365/5405 and now the Kissam has been changed to ‘Patita’. According to Mr.Dash, the construction beyond the allotted land to the extent of Ac.0.252 decimals is not permitted and said land is coming within the residential use zone as well as partly under water bodies zone. It is further stated by Mr.Dash, relying on such report of the Site Selection Committee, that no Sairat source is existing over said plot, which is feasible for the purpose of construction.

8. Opposite Party No.8, i.e. Sarpanch of Lingipur, has filed his counter. Mr.Dalai, learned counsel appearing for said Opposite Party No.8 submits that genuineness of cause of action as stated by the Petitioner is seriously doubtful because his house is not going to be affected in any way which situated far-away from site on the other side of Nat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top