Facts of the Case

The first writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by members of the tribal community residing in Chunukoli village, Khordha District. They challenged the revised alignment of a proposed 200-feet-wide road from the Institute of Mathematics to Ekamra Kanan via Infocity, alleging that the authorities had illegally deviated from the originally approved Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). According to them, the revised alignment would result in demolition of tribal houses, religious places and community structures while violating the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The second writ petition was filed in public interest seeking immediate completion of the same road project, contending that the revised alignment complied with Indian Road Congress norms, improved road safety, reduced accident risk and served the larger public interest. The petitioner submitted that the project had been stalled because of the pendency of the first PIL, causing inconvenience to the public and escalation of project costs.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the revised alignment of the road violated the Comprehensive Development Plan approved under the Odisha Development Authorities Act.
  2. Whether the authorities had modified the road alignment without following the mandatory statutory procedure.
  3. Whether the revised alignment violated the rights claimed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
  4. Whether the Court should interfere with the revised alignment of a public infrastructure project designed for road safety and public convenience.
  5. Whether encroachers on Government land could prevent implementation of a public development project.

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners contended that modification of the Comprehensive Development Plan required compliance with Section 14 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act and Rule 17 of the Odisha Development Authorities Rules, including consultation with affected stakeholders.
  • They alleged that the Road Engineering authorities had illegally altered the approved alignment without statutory authority.
  • It was argued that the revised alignment would displace tribal residents, demolish religious structures and community facilities and adversely affect rights protected under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
  • The petitioners further alleged arbitrariness, collusion and favouritism in modifying the alignment to protect the interests of other entities.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The State submitted that the revised alignment was prepared after considering engineering requirements, road safety parameters and Indian Road Congress norms.
  • It was argued that the revised alignment reduced sharp curves, minimised accident risks and improved connectivity for the expanding Bhubaneswar city.
  • The authorities clarified that the modified CDP had been approved following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Odisha Development Authorities Act and was published in the Odisha Gazette.
  • They further submitted that the revised alignment substantially reduced the requirement of forest land, necessary permissions had already been obtained and demolition of important structures would be kept to the bare minimum.
  • The respondents also contended that the road would be constructed only on Government land made encumbrance-free through due process of law and that the petitioners had no recognised forest rights over the disputed land since their claims had already been rejected under the Forest Rights Act.

Court Order / Findings

The Orissa High Court dismissed W.P.(C) No. 6497 of 2024 challenging the revised road alignment and held that the public infrastructure project had been undertaken after following the statutory framework.

The Court observed that:

  • The revised alignment was based on technical considerations, road safety standards and Indian Road Congress norms.
  • The modified Comprehensive Development Plan had been duly approved and notified in accordance with law.
  • The project primarily utilised Government land and reduced the extent of forest land required.
  • The petitioners failed to establish any enforceable forest rights over the land in question.
  • The Court found that several petitioners were occupying Government land without legal authority and had suppressed material facts, including previous civil court proceedings directing their eviction.
  • Public interest in safe road infrastructure and planned urban development outweighed the objections raised by encroachers.
  • Courts should not protect illegal encroachments that obstruct public development projects.

The Court further directed the authorities to proceed with completion of the road widening and expansion project in accordance with the revised Comprehensive Development Plan and applicable Government policy regarding removal of encroachments. Both writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • Road alignment based on engineering safety standards and approved statutory procedures will ordinarily not be interfered with by constitutional courts.
  • Encroachers cannot claim protection against removal merely because public infrastructure projects affect their occupation of Government land.
  • Claims under the Forest Rights Act must satisfy the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act before protection can be granted.
  • Larger public interest, road safety and planned urban development prevail where statutory procedures have been duly followed.

Courts reiterated that illegal occupation of Government land cannot be permitted to obstruct public infrastructure projects.

Sections Involved

  • Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 14 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982
  • Rules 16 & 17 of the Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983
  • Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (including Sections 3(2) & 4(3))
  • Relevant principles relating to removal of encroachments over Government land and public infrastructure development.

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785404972_2401compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.