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
| 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
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.
The preservation of water bodies takes precedence over private interest in development, affirming that unauthorized constructions are subject to demolition, and proper planning permissions must be ad....
Fields of parties has been continuing for last 32 years, and thus, after lapse of such a long period, petitioner cannot raise any objection.
Encroachment on water bodies is impermissible; restoration of original ecological status is mandated by law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.