Orissa High Court Refuses to Intervene in Cuttack Encroachment Dispute
The Orissa High Court has declined to order the removal of alleged encroachments in the Nuapada area of Cuttack city, ruling that the matter involves contested facts that must be adjudicated by a civil court. In a judgment delivered on April 6, the single-judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra highlighted that the core issue revolves around whether the land in question is public or private property.
Court's Rationale for Deferring to Civil Jurisdiction
Justice Mishra observed that issuing a directive for demolition or removal of the alleged encroachments would necessitate the high court to determine disputed questions of fact. "Issuance of direction for demolition or removal of alleged encroachment would necessarily require this court to determine disputed questions of fact," he remarked. The bench was considering two petitions that sought the high court's intervention against the encroachments in Nuapada.
Justice Mishra noted that a civil court, through an order on January 6, 2025, had directed that the status quo be maintained and restrained the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) from acting on the latest measurement report. This interim order remains in effect. "Where disputed questions of fact are involved and the parties are already before the civil court, the high court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction," he further stated.
Background of the Land Dispute
The dispute centers on two plots, which the petitioners claim are public roads obstructed by unauthorized constructions erected by five individuals, thereby affecting access for local residents. The petitioners relied on prior actions by the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA), which had ordered the demolition of encroachments in August 2016, a decision that was upheld on appeal in September 2017.
Following a directive from the high court in earlier litigation, joint measurements were conducted in 2019 and again on July 10, 2024, both indicating the presence of encroachments. Notices were issued in August 2024, but with no further steps taken, the petitioners approached the court again seeking enforcement of the orders.
Alleged Encroachers' Counterclaims
The alleged encroachers disputed these claims, asserting that one of the plots is a jointly owned private passage, while the other is private homestead land. They alleged that the petitioners had "falsely projected a private passage as a public road" and pointed out that civil suits filed in 2024 concerning title, possession, and the nature of the land are pending before the civil judge (senior division) in Cuttack. Additionally, they challenged the accuracy of the measurement reports.
Court's Final Decision and Implications
However, Justice Mishra declined to intervene and disposed of the two petitions, granting the petitioners the liberty to seek relief before the civil court. The civil court will now adjudicate the dispute based on evidence and applicable law, ensuring a thorough examination of the factual complexities involved.
This ruling underscores the high court's cautious approach in matters where factual disputes are central, emphasizing the role of civil courts in resolving such intricate land issues. The decision is expected to set a precedent for similar encroachment cases in the region, highlighting the importance of due process and judicial hierarchy.
