DHRUBA CHARAN PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 68 of 2000 is the petitioner as against the order of temporary injunction refused in his favour by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Salipur in Misc. Case No. 114 of 2000 and the confirming order passed on 23-7-2002 by the Fast Track Court No. 2, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2001.

(2.) The simple case of the plaintiff is that on 12-7-1982 he executed a gift-deed in favour of the Block Development Officer, Salipur gifting away Ac. 0.06 decimals of land from plot No. 553 of Khata No. 153 and Chaka No. 8 situated in Mouza Dhanuapada measuring total area of Ac. 0.279 decimals. He gifted that property in public interest to facilitate the Government to construct a road to connect the village road with the public road. Defendant No. 4 is the Contractor to execute the work and the State Government officers, i.e., Collector, B.D.O. and Tahasildar are the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Grievance of the plaintiff is that notwithstanding his generosity in donating a specific patch of land for the purpose of construction of the link road, Government has approved a plan for construction of the road by utilising another patch of Ac. 0.06 decimals of land of the plaintiff from the same plot by abandoning the gifted area. He has claimed that Government has no right, title or authority to forcibly construct a road on the private land. With such prayer he filed the suit for permanent injunction. In their separate written statements defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4 have pleaded that donation of land was taken from several persons to connect the two roads and the property gifted by the plaintiff being not beneficial for connecting the road and when another equal patch of land (suit land) from the said plot was utilised as road by the villagers, therefore, the road has been directed to be constructed over that patch.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) considering the aforesaid pleading and discussing about the intention of the plaintiff behind the gift deed executed, found it unreasonable on the part of the plaintiff to protest to the construction of the road when it is being done for public benefit, and accordingly refused to grant interim injunction. Learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 2 confirming to that approach dismissed the appeal.