Free Government land of encroachments in three months: Odisha HC
The court issued the direction by way of a guideline while disposing of a PIL recently. The division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman said, 'The state shall make an extensive enquiry and/or investigation in relation to an encroachment over the government land by engaging the competent authorities including the amin for relay and survey of the plots.'
If the land is found to have been encroached upon, the government should take steps to remove them invoking the provisions of Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. 'The removal of encroachments should not exceed beyond three months from the date of the report of the surveyor/amin or the other competent authority,' the bench said.
Kamala Singh, a social activist, filed the PIL alleging that the government is showing apathetic attitude in not taking any steps for removal of encroachments over one acre of government land (forest category) near Belpal under Badasahi tehsil in Mayurbhanj district. The alleged encroachments were in the form of a furniture manufacturing unit, an oil mill and parking of transport vehicles and tractors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Prof Jagneshwar Dandapat reappointed interim VC of Utkal University under amended Ordinance
BHUBANESWAR: Prof Jagneshwar Dandapat has been reappointed as the in-charge vice-chancellor (VC) of Utkal University. The Chancellor's office on Friday issued a notification in this regard. He will continue till joining of the new vice-chancellor or until further orders. Dandapat was appointed as the in-charge V-C on May 27 this year after Sabita Acharya's extended tenure ended on May 23. However, this was challenged by a lawyer Prabir Kumar Das who filed a PIL in Orissa High Court, alleging that the appointment violated Section 6 (10) of the Odisha Universities Amendment Act, 2024. The Orissa High Court on Wednesday disposed of the PIL following the state government's decision to cancel the appointment. The re-appointment is according to the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025. Section 6 (10) of the Ordinance has been amended to empower the Chancellor to appoint any person as V-C for the time being until a regular appointment is made. This also empowers the Chancellor to fix the tenure of the V-C.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC issues SOP for judicial officers on extension pleas in time-bound cases, bars direct SC communication
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) for judicial officers across the state to streamline the process of seeking extensions in time-bound judicial matters, following directions from the Supreme Court. The move is aimed to bring uniformity and transparency to the extension process in time-bound cases, ensuring judicial discipline and institutional oversight in compliance with the Supreme Court's directive. The SOP, notified by registrar general Asanta Kumar Das, is in response to observations made by the apex court in a case on May 23. The court expressed concern over direct communications from trial court judges to its registry, a practice deemed 'wholly unacceptable'. It clarified that such communications must be routed through the high court's registry. The newly issued SOP mandates that all judicial officers, including district judges and judges of family courts, must submit extension requests via official email and regular mode to the registrar (judicial) of the high court. These requests must include case details, current status, reasons for delay and the period of extension sought, formatted as per a prescribed annexure. For cases monitored by the Supreme Court, the high court registrar (judicial) will forward the request to the appropriate officer in the apex court's registry. Direct communication by any presiding officer with the Supreme Court registry is strictly prohibited. The SOP emphasises accountability, stating that repeated or unjustified delays may invite administrative scrutiny. Further, district judges and the registrar (judicial) are tasked with monthly monitoring of such cases and maintaining records for periodic reporting to the court.
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa High Court upholds eviction of religious structure from govt land in Rajgangpur
CUTTACK: In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has upheld the eviction of a religious structure located on government land in Rajgangpur municipality of Sundargarh district. The order passed by Justice SK Panigrahi on July 18 dismissed a writ petition filed by the managing committee of Lal Baba Dargah (Mazahar), challenging their eviction initiated by local authorities in 2015. The petitioner had contested the eviction proceedings initiated by the sub-collector-cum-estate officer, Sadar, Sundargarh under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The eviction order, passed on September 26, 2015, was subsequently upheld by the collector of Sundargarh on July 19, 2016. The petitioner had sought quashing of both orders. At the core of the dispute was whether the land in question, classified as Rasta (road), qualified as 'public premises' under the 1972 Act. The court observed that the land lies within the jurisdiction of Rajgangpur municipality and recorded in the name of state government, which clearly place it within the statutory definition of 'public premises.' Justice Panigrahi noted that the classification of the land as Rasta only reaffirmed its public character and did not preclude action under the Eviction Act. He rejected the petitioner's argument that such land should be treated differently, terming the contention as 'misconceived' and 'contrary to the plain language' of the statute. The court further ruled that the existence of structures for religious or public purposes cannot legitimise unauthorised occupation of government land unless such occupation is regularised under law. 'No amount of well-intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions,' the judgment stated.
