ANADI BEHERA & ANOTHER Vs. BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, to restrain the opposite parties from interfering with the possession over the land appertaining to Plot Nos.68 and 92, Sabik Khata No.5, area Ac.0.675 and Plot Nos.121 and 123, Sabik Khata No.92, area Ac.0.255 dec. of Mouza -Bomikhal.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 is the owner in possession of the land under Plot Nos.68 and 92, Khata No.5, area Ac.0.675 of Mouza -Bomikhal. Petitioner No.2 is the owner in possession of the land appertaining to Plot Nos.121 and 123, Sabik Khata No.92, area Ac.0.255 dec. of Mouza -Bomikhal. In the record of right, the land in question was recorded in the names of the petitioners. While the petitioners were in possession of the land, a notice was served on them on 24.2.1977 for acquisition of the land. Thereafter, the petitioners along with others, who were similarly circumstanced, submitted a representation before the competent authority to release the land from the process of acquisition. Thereafter, the site selection committee was constituted by the Government to finalize the extent of the land required for acquisition. The committee agreed for reduction of the proposed road from 100 feet to 60 feet. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Capital Construction Division No.II, Bhubaneswar was requested to furnish withdrawal proposal of the land as well as revised land acquisition proposal. Since no decision was taken, the petitioner along with others filed a writ application before this Court assailing the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which was registered as OJC No.303 of 1997. During pendency of the said writ application, by an interim order, this Court directed the Secretary, Works Department to cause an enquiry and submit a report as to whether the lands of the petitioners are necessary for construction of the proposed road. The Secretary, Works Department after causing enquiry submitted a report before the Court that the lands of the petitioners are not required for construction of the road. Pursuant to the said report, this Court by order dated 17.9.1992 directed the State Government to withdraw acquisition of the lands of the petitioner, which are not covered by the road proposed in the drawing. Since the notification issued under the Act was not withdrawn, the petitioner filed writ applications being OJC Nos.5565 of 1995 and 7438 of 1997 respectively before this Court for a direction to the State of Orissa to release the land from the process of acquisition as per the direction issued by this Court or in the alternative to acquire the land by paying adequate compensation at the prevailing market rate.

(3.) The further case of the petitioners is that the Vice -Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority, opposite party no.2, (hereinafter referred to as "the B.D.A") in his letter dated 11.5.1987, vide Annexure -4, intimated the Director of Estate -cum -Joint Secretary, G.A. Department that 60 feet wide link road connecting Sachivalaya Marg and Bidyut Marg was not considered necessary in the draft master plan. The road is a minor road linking two arterial roads and that there is no traffic congestion. It is further stated that the G.A Department had taken a decision to release the lands of the petitioners from the process of acquisition. It is further stated that the B.D.A and its officials have been attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. When the petitioners tried to construct a boundary wall, the B.D.A. initiated a proceeding under Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the ODA Act"). The action of the opposite parties is tainted with mala fide. With the factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed.