CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed a notice issued by the Rourkela Development Authority (RDA) directing removal of alleged encroachment over government land in the city, holding that the agency acted “without jurisdiction” and in “colourable exercise of power”.
Delivering its judgement in a petition filed by Dharama Sangh, a private association, Justice SK Panigrahi observed that the RDA’s action “constitutes an instance of administrative incongruity” as it initiated proceedings under section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities(ODA) Act, 1982, while the petitioner’s lease proposal for the same land was pending before the Sundargarh collector.
The petitioner had challenged the RDA’s show-cause notice dated September 21, 2017, and sought directions for the collector to decide on the lease/NOC application in accordance with a government resolution dated April 24, 2015, issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management department. The resolution provides that upon receipt of police verification, “the collector shall consider the matter and take further action regarding sanction or allotment of lease”.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a detailed representation had been made to the collector on May 26, 2015, seeking regularisation and lease of the land for socio-cultural and public welfare activities. It was further argued that proceedings under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972, had already been initiated by the Rourkela tehsildar, and rent and penalty had been paid. Hence, the RDA’s action amounted to double jeopardy and was “jurisdictionally untenable”.
Justice Panigrahi, in his order, noted that while the RDA exercises control over development and regulation within its planning area, the collector and revenue authorities have jurisdiction over regularisation and lease of government land under the OPLE Act and the 2015 government resolution.
Holding that the RDA “acted in derogation of the state’s own policy and thereby transgressed the limits of its delegated authority”, Justice Panigrahi said the impugned notice “bears no indication of application of mind to the pending lease proceedings or the petitioner’s compliance under the OPLE Act”.
Accordingly, the notice was quashed, and the Sundargarh collector was directed to dispose of the petitioner’s lease proposal within three months.