Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 14872
ORISSA HIGH COURT
,
SADHU CHARAN SAHOO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
WP(C)/29435/2022
The court will not interfere with the status quo prevailing for more than six years.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged the conversion of a plot of land in Mouza-Saradhapur, Tahasil-Angul, which was earlier in Kissam-Gochar, to Unnat Jojana Jogya (UJJ) and the consequential further conversion and allotment of the said land in favour of IDCO.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not inclined to interfere with the status quo prevailing since the conversion took place more than six years ago.
Issues: Whether the conversion of the land was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioners' objections to the conversion and allotment of land to IDCO were considered and rejected by the Tahasildar, Angul & the Sub-Collector, Angul in 2020 and that the said orders did not suffer from perversity or any illegality.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Page 1 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (PIL) No.29435 of 2022
Sadhu Charan Sahoo & Others
….
Petitioners
Mr. H. N. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
Order No.
ORDER
03.01.2023
01.
1. The grievance of the present Petitioner is regarding the
conversion of a plot of land in Mouza-Saradhapur, Tahasil-Angul,
which was earlier in Kissam-Gochar, to Unnat Jojana Jogya (UJJ)
and the consequential further conversion and allotment of the said
land in favour of IDCO.
2. The order, on the basis of which such conversion was permitted,
was passed by the Collector, Angul on 20th August, 2016. Earlier the
Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) (PIL) No.26997 of 2017 challenging the
said order. The said writ petition came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution when the Court was informed by the counsel for the
Petitioners in that case that the file was not traceable in his office.
Liberty was granted by the Court, while dismissing that writ petition,
to revive it as and when the papers were traced.
3. Without reviving that writ petition, the present fresh writ petition
has been filed. As far as the main grievance is concerned, the
conversion having taken place for more than six years ago, the Court
is not, at this stage, inclined to interfere with the status quo
Page 2 of 2
prevailing since then. The fact of the matter is that objections of the
Petitioners were considered to the conversion and allotment of land
to IDCO and orders were passed both by the Tahasildar, Angul &
the Sub-Collector, Angul rejecting the prayer of the present
Petitioners. The said orders were passed in 2020 itself. The Court
has not been persuaded to hold that the said orders suffer from
perversity or any illegality.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
