E-Paper
Orissa high court slams govt for allowing 5-decade dispute to drag on
The Orissa high court dismissed the state’s arguments that the order had become unenforceable due to subsequent developments
The Orissa high court has slammed the state government for allowing a five-decade forest lease dispute to drag on without resolution even after a binding Supreme Court order, calling delayed justice the “egregious form of human rights violation”.
“When a citizen wins a legal battle, [the] state should rejoice it. That spirit is not seen nowadays. At times, state functionaries take [an] ego trip. That drives the citizens to think [ that the] state is their first enemy. This does not... [augur] well for the good governance. Orders/decrees of courts, more particularly of the highest court of the country, cannot go unimplemented by the judgment debtors with impunity,” the high court said.
It added that the orders ought to be enforced when parties fail to implement them. “Mere showing ritualistic respect to courts is not sufficient. A party victorious in the legal battle has to reap the fruits of litigation, and nothing short of that would satisfy him,” said Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad in a September 8 order uploaded on the high court website on Thursday.
The case dates back to the late 1970s when contracts over forest coupes in the Karanjia division were contested. The Supreme Court in 1992 recorded a settlement between Udayanath Sahoo, a forest contractor, and the state government. It directed the state to identify uncut trees for division. The order remained unimplemented despite repeated directions. Sahoo passed away during the pendency of litigation. His heirs continued the fight.
The high court dismissed the state’s arguments that the order became unenforceable due to subsequent developments, including the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the TN Godavarman series of judgments that expanded forest protection jurisprudence. It noted that the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act and the 1980 Act were in force when the Supreme Court recorded the settlement, and attempts to reopen the issue were rejected in 1994.
Justice Shripad said the plea of frustration of contract is an afterthought intended to defeat the decree, if not defraud the decree holders. He added that the state continued to auction fallen trees.
The high court asked why the government failed to comply with the apex court’s directive. It stressed that orders of the Supreme Court and high courts cannot remain on paper. “Court orders are not for photo framing, but are made for implementation,” it said. The high court ruled that substituted remedies must be devised so that victorious litigants can reap the fruits of their legal battles if primary relief cannot be enforced.
The high court directed the state to either provide the decree holders with logs equivalent to those covered under the 1970s forest contract or pay them the present market value, adjusted for payments due with 6% simple interest. The decree holders were awarded exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh to be recovered from officials responsible for the prolonged litigation.
Justice Shripad cited American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dictum that constitutions exist to preserve “practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories.”
