Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAI MANGLA HARIJAN KALYAN SAMITI versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Decided
3 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 623 · 1997 INSC 216

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 623, margin F

These appeals, by special leave, arise from the orders of the Orissa High Court, made on March 12, 1996 and September 2, 1996 in OJC Nos. 1415/96 and 9123/96 respectively. The High Court in the impugned order has directed as under.

p. 623, margin F

"We direct the concerned authorities to locate and remove all the encroachments inside the campus within three months from today. If necessary, assistance of the police shall be taken for such removal. The Superintendent of Police in his affidavit has stated

pp. 623–624, margin G

that in case police assistance is necessary, same shall be provided."

p. 624, margin A

It is contended for the appellants that their tenements are situated outside the campus, but taking aid of the order passed by the High Court they are being forcibly ejected. It is stated by Mr. P.N. Misra, counsel appearing for the State, that action is being taken for ejectment of all those who have trespassed and put up tenements within the compound of the hospital and no action has been taken, vis-a-vis those who are having the tenements outside the campus. In view of the specific stand taken by the Gover__nment, apprehension of the appellants that they would be ejected, if theidenements are really outside the campus, is unfounded. It is, therefore, made clear that the order of the High Court is perfectly correct as regards the ejectment of all those encroachers having unauthorised huts etc. within the campus of the hospital which is required to maintain hygienic conditions. Therefore, the action taken and the directions issued are perfectly in order. If any such action is taken, vis-a-vis those who are residing outside the campus by taking advantage of the order passed by the High Court, it would be open to them to go to the High Court and place the necessary material before the High Court for consideration. The High Court would look into the individual cases and pass appropriate orders according to law.

p. 624, margin A

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed o~, ·'·

p. 624, margin E