WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 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 Development Department and Others … Opposite Parties 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 13th 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. Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 2. Present writ petition is filed challenging impugned order dated 10th 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 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 1st 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2026 17:53:12 WP(C) No.32111 of 2025 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