Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Krushna Chandra Mohapatra (dead). Represented Through L.Rs And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha And Others – Respondents
W.P.(C). No. 29828 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 29911 of 2024
Decided On : 07-04-2026
For the Petitioner:Ms. D. Mahapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate With Mr. M.R. Pradhan, Advocate, Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate
The court declines to issue a writ directing removal of encroachments, emphasizing that disputed factual questions are to be resolved by the Civil Court.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Development Authority Act - The Act establishes procedures for dealing with unauthorized constructions and encroachments on land - The Court emphasizes its unwillingness to intervene when disputes of fact are present and where other appropriate legal remedies exist. (Paras 1, 10, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - The Court clarifies that it will refrain from using its extraordinary jurisdiction in matters where factual disputes exist and parties are engaged in ongoing civil litigation, referring the matter back to the Civil Court for resolution of rights and evidence. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge the inaction of the Cuttack Development Authority to remove encroachments made by private parties on Plot Nos.602 and 606, claiming these plots constitute a public road that were confirmed as such in previous proceedings. The private opposers claim ownership, asserting the land is private, with disputes of title ongoing in civil court.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds it inappropriate to order removal of alleged encroachments as the matter involves disputed facts now under civil litigation.
Issues: Whether the plots are public or private, and the appropriate jurisdiction for their resolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determines that issues requiring factual resolution are best suited for the Civil Court, not a writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against encroachment removal in cuttack (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition claims private ownership (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's argument on compliance with prior orders (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. dispute involves questions of fact requiring civil court action (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ court should refrain from interfering due to disputed facts (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioners seek to challenge the inaction of Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4, namely, Cuttack Development Authority (C.D.A.), Planning Member/Secretary, CDA and Enforcement Officer, CDA respectively in the matter of removal of encroachment allegedly made by the private opposite parties over Plot Nos.602 and 606 under Mouza–Nuapada in Cuttack despite fresh measurement conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33429 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.21106 of 2023.
2. Since both the writ petitions involve common facts, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) No.29828 of 2024 are referred to.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 made unauthorized constructions over Plot Nos.602 and 606, which according to the them are public road, thereby obstructing to easy ingress and egress of the petitioners and other inhabitants of the locality. It is stated that in U.C. Case No.174 of 2015, Cuttack Development Authority (Opp. Party no.2) upon enquiry found such encroachment and directed removal of the unauthorized constructions by order dtd 28.08.2016 which was affirmed in Appeal No.27 of 2016 by order dtd. 23.09.2017. Said appellate order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2017, wherein this Court directed joint measurement of the land taking into account both existing and non-existing maps. Pursuant thereto, joint measurement was conducted in 2019, wherein the encroachment was confirmed.
It is also stated that that despite such findings, no steps were taken by the authorities, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.33429 of 2020, which was disposed of on 06.05.2024 with a direction to conduct fresh measurement and to take consequential action within a stipulated period. In compliance thereof, fresh joint measurement was conducted on 10.07.2024, by which encroachment was again found over the said plots and notices dated 23.08.2024 were issued to Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 for removal of the unauthorized constructions. As no further action was taken by the authorities (O.P no. 2 to 4), the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.
4. Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9, on the other hand, have filed a counter affidavit claiming that Plot No.602 is a private passage jointly owned by them and their co-sharers, and Plot No.606 is a private homestead land belonging to third parties. The petitioners have no right over the said land and have falsely projected a private passage as a public road.
It is also stated that the dispute involves questions relating to title, possession and nature of land, which are matters for adjudication by the Civil Court and in fact, civil suits are already pending between the parties in C.S no. 1015 of 2024 before Civil Judge, Sr. division, Cuttack. The correctness of the measurement reports is also disputed in C.S. no. 995 of 2024 before the same Court.
5. Heard Ms. D. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dayanand Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the CDA, Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the private Opp. Party nos. 5 to 9 and Ms. J. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
6. Ms. D. Mahapatra would argue that the issue of encroachment over Plot Nos.602 and 606 has already been determined in earlier proceedings under the provisions of the ODA Act, wherein, upon due enquiry, the CDA directed demolition of the unauthorized constructions and the same was affirmed in appeal. Said o
