CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has directed the chief secretary and the chairman of Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) to furnish the list of officials who were supposed to carry out an order for return of acquired land to the owner over six years back.
The court said the names of the officials were required for initiating suo motu contempt proceedings for non-compliance of an order issued on January 15, 2018. The direction was issued on Tuesday while hearing a petition filed by Abhay Charan Jena in 2001.
Jena’s land was acquired by the state government for being handed over to CDA. Later as CDA decided the land was not required, it was supposed to be returned to the petitioner. But in the period in between, the land was encroached upon and the petition languished for 17 years.
On January 15, 2018, the high court directed the secretary of Housing and Urban Development department to take necessary steps for physical verification and survey of the acquired land in question especially with regard to unauthorised illegal occupation and how the same can be returned to the petitioner, as the CDA did not require the same. But the order has not been complied with till date.
Taking serious note of it, the division bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice MS Raman in its March 5 order said, “The court is of the view that the defiance by state and CDA officials of the court’s order passed way back in January 2018 constitutes gross contempt of this court. They have shown least respect for this court’s orders. We accordingly consider it to be a fit case for initiating a suo motu contempt proceeding against the concerned state officials and the officials of the CDA.”
The bench, while posting the matter to March 19, clarified, “We make it clear that the chief secretary, Odisha and the chairman, CDA shall be under obligation to furnish the names of such persons holding the positions in the state government and the CDA responsible for non-compliance of the order right from the date when the order was passed in 2018 till today (March 5, 2024).
In the order, the bench said, “During more than two decades of pendency of the petition in the high court, the petitioner died on September 30, 2020 and substitution of legal heirs in place of the petitioner was allowed on that day.