Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Kshetra Mohan Rout – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| 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 :
I.A.No.2424 of 2026
2. Upon hearing all the parties, the prayer for intervention is allowed.
W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2025
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 an
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.
The court emphasized the Public Trust Doctrine, ruling that wetlands must be protected from alienation for private use, reaffirming their importance for public benefit and environmental sustainabilit....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of the Siddapura Lotus Pond on the disputed land and that the grants made to private individ....
Point of law : water bodies cannot be alienated even if they are dry and cultivation carried on dried bed of water bodies does not denude land of its character as water bodies.
Fields of parties has been continuing for last 32 years, and thus, after lapse of such a long period, petitioner cannot raise any objection.
Riverbed or water body land cannot be regularized under policy citing Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; writ courts cannot re-examine factual reports submitted by authorities.
The Court emphasized that judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless there's a failure of justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
