Orissa High Court
Sirin Jahanara Rehan vs State Of Odisha on 13 February, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025
(Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Sirin Jahanara Rehan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented
through its Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, Housing and Urban ... Opposite Parties
Development Department and
Others
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Budhia, along with
Mr. N.K. Rout, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA
Mr. D. Nayak, counsel for O.P. No.2,
3&4
Opposite Party No.5 in person
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
13 February, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Budhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.
Nayak, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4 (Cuttack Municipal
Corporation (CMC) Authorities), Mr. T.K. Dash, learned AGA for State
– opposite parties and opposite party No.5 who appears in person.
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12
2. Present writ petition is filed challenging impugned order dated 10 th
September, 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (UC Court),
C.M.C. under Annexure-4 and the notice of demolition under Annexure-
5.
3. Petitioner’s case is that he re-constructed and renovated his old
house situating over plot No.646/2159 measuring area 91.45 square
meter in Mouza – Cuttack Town Unit-11, Odia Bazar, Sutahat and the
same was later found as unauthorized construction by the authorities. As
such UC Case No.08 of 2024 was initiated under Section 91 of the
Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (ODA Act). The petitioner
appeared there and contested the case. Opposite Party No.5, who is the
neighbour of the petitioner, also appeared and contested in the case.
4. It is the specific allegation made by opposite party no.5 that such
construction has been made in violation of the Building Regulations and
statutory provisions under the ODA Rules, 1983 as well as CDA
Building Regulations, 2017. Opposite Party No.5 contends that the
petitioner has constructed the 1st floor in the guise of renovation / re-
construction opening three windows to his land on the boundary wall.
According to opposite party no.5, such opening of windows to his land
by the petitioner, apart from leaving the set-back area, on the boundary
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12
wall affects his right of privacy as well as in violation of the Building
Regulations.
5. The petitioner’s contention is that his house is situating over the
plot since long and out of necessity now he is constructing the 1st floor,
without violating the Building Regulations in manner. It is further
mentioned by the petitioner that the permission for construction was
refused by CMC on the ground that no permission is required for
renovation purpose. It is further submitted that, when it is admitted that
the petitioner has not encroached to others’ land such construction made
by her cannot be demolished for violation of the Building Regulations.
6. Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for CMC submits that the petitioner
in the guise of renovation of house has entirely constructed the 1 st floor
without getting any approval of the building plan, and upon spot
verification it is found that the petitioner has undertaken new developed
constructions like ground and 1st floor of the building on the alleged
piece of land without leaving any set-back in terms of the Building
Regulations.
7. Upon hearing all the parties and perusal of the impugned order
under Annexure-4, it reveals that the authorities have conducted a spot
enquiry through the concerned Amin and other officials. In the report of
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12
the Amin as well as in the report of the Assistant Town Planner, it has
been stated that the petitioner has entirely undertaken new construction
like ground floor and 1st floor and admittedly there is no approval taken
from the concerned authorities for said construction.
8. Though the petitioner has stated that the authorities have refused to
grant permission on the ground that there is no need to give permission,
but no such material is placed on record to justify her contention that she
applied for permission or the authorities have refused any permission to
her. No such application for permission is produced on record on behalf
of the petitioner.
9. Section 91 of the ODA Act prescribes for removal of unauthorized
development in contravention of the development plan or without the
permission, approval or sanction under the Building Regulations. In
ODA (Planning and Building Standard) Rules, 2020 the procedure for
approval of building plan has been prescribed in terms of Rule 5
corresponding to Section 15 of the ODA Act. In the case at hand, it is
admitted that the petitioner has not obtained any approval or sanction
from the authority either in terms of Section 15 of the ODA Act nor
anything is revealing that she has made any application to that effect. The
field enquiry report as per the Amin and the Assistant Town Planner of
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12
CMC is never questioned by the petitioner. Moreover, it is the specific
allegation of opposite party no.5, the neighbor, that, the petitioner has
opened three windows to his land on the boundary wall without leaving
any set-back area and this is affecting his rights. In such circumstances,
no reason is seen to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-4
and consequent notice thereof under Annexure-5.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K. Panda/P.A
WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 Page 5 of 5
