CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a PIL challenging a proposed road construction project near Bhubaneswar, clearing the way for authorities to proceed with the widening and expansion plan.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman rejected the petition filed by 18 people who alleged that the proposed 200-feet-wide road in Andharua gram panchayat would endanger tribal homes and religious sites.
The petitioners contended that the road alignment deviated from the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and violated safeguards under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
The court, however, found no merit in the claims. It noted that the road project, linking the Institute of Mathematics to Ekamra Kanan via Infocity, had been duly finalised after a consultative process under the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, and the modified CDP was officially notified in the Odisha Gazette on May 14, 2018.
In the March 18 judgement, the court strongly reiterated that unauthorised occupation of government land does not create legal rights. “Long duration of illegal occupation confers no legal right; mere passage of time does not vest any right or create any adverse title against the true owner,” the bench observed.
The bench also held that the petitioners had suppressed material facts. It pointed out that earlier proceedings, including a civil suit filed in 2011, had culminated in a 2018 decree directing eviction of some occupants. Despite this, the petitioners continued to assert claims, including under forest rights provisions.
Further, inquiry reports under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 indicated that the petitioners were obstructing recovery of government land and causing disturbances.
Referring to the civil court’s order dated May 19, 2018, directing the occupants to vacate within three months, the high court criticised the petitioners for failing to approach the judiciary with “clean hands, clean heart and clean objective”, and remarked that the plea appeared aimed at protecting “rank encroachers”.
Emphasising the judiciary’s role in discouraging unlawful occupation, the court stated that illegal possession cannot be permitted to continue under judicial protection.
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed, and authorities were directed to proceed with eviction measures and complete the road widening project in line with the approved development plan.