Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22706 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Dharama Sangha .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitav Das, Sr. Adv.
Along with Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
(for O.P.5)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-18.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has made a prayer to quash the notice dated 21.09.2017 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/ Secretary, Rourkela Development Authority, Rourkela directing removal of the mandir over plot No.399(P), Khata No.9, Mouza-RTC. The Petitioner further seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.3/ Collector, Sundargarh to take a decision with regard to sanction of Lease/ NOC in view of the circular dated 24.04.2015 issued by the Revenue & Disaster management Department Government of Odisha. Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015, issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, categorically provides that upon receipt of the requisite verification report from the district police authorities, the Collector shall assume seisin of the matter and take further action regarding sanction or allotment of lease. In conformity with this directive, the Petitioner's association submitted a detailed representation before the Collector, Sundargarh on 26.05.2015, seeking early disposal of its application for lease of the subject land, not merely for regularization of possession but to advance its long-standing socio- cultural and public welfare objectives. He emphasized on the following points:
(i) It was contended that the show-cause notice dated 21.09.2017 issued under Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 by the Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela, acting ex officio as Secretary of the Rourkela Development Authority (RDA), is ultra vires, arbitrary, and vitiated by non-application of mind. The Land Allotment Committee had already, by its resolution dated 20.09.2014, resolved to consider the Petitioner's case for allotment subject to fulfilment of certain preconditions, which were duly complied with. In view of the subsequent Government Resolution of 24.04.2015, the matter fell exclusively Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 within the jurisdiction of the Collector, Sundargarh for further action upon receipt of the police verification report.
(ii) The initiation of a parallel proceeding by the RDA amounts to a colourable exercise of power and administrative impropriety, as it interferes with a matter sub judice before the competent revenue authority. The impugned notice constitutes administrative overreach and violates the principle of institutional discipline between statutory and executive authorities. Such an act, being calculated to frustrate the administrative process pending before the Collector, is tainted by malice in law and contrary to the policy objective underlying the 2015 Resolution.
(iii) It was further urged that Encroachment Case No.10 of 2007 had already been initiated by the Tahasildar, Rourkela, under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, in respect of the same land. The Petitioner, having paid rent and penalty assessed thereunder, continues to be recognized as a person in lawful possession pending final regularization. The initiation of another proceeding under the ODA Act, 1982 during the pendency of the encroachment and lease proceedings is jurisdictionally untenable, amounting to double jeopardy in administrative process.
(iv) It was submitted that the OPLE Act and ODA Act operate in distinct statutory spheres--the former governing regularization of occupation over Government land, and the latter addressing unauthorized construction in notified development areas. Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
Invocation of the ODA machinery, while the matter was under
active consideration within the revenue hierarchy, is thus ultra vires legislative intent and contrary to the doctrine of harmonious construction.
(v) The impugned notice, issued without jurisdiction and contrary to pending proceedings, is procedurally defective and constitutionally infirm, offending the guarantees of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Citing S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India1 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2it was urged that the administrative power must be exercised on relevant considerations and in consonance with the rule of law.
Accordingly, the Petitioner prayed that the impugned notice under Section 91 of the ODA Act, 1982 be quashed and that the pending lease application be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and the spirit of administrative justice.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the Rourkela Development Authority is ex facie ultra vires, manifestly arbitrary, and repugnant to the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Collector to proceed with sanction or allotment of lease upon completion of police AIR 1967 SC 1427 1 (1978) 1 SCC 248 2 Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 verification. It was urged that the Petitioner, having complied with all procedural requisites and with the matter pending before the Collector, Sundargarh, could not lawfully be subjected to a collateral proceeding by the RDA. He submitted the following points for consideration of this Court:
(i) It was further contended that initiation of a proceeding under Section 91 of the ODA Act, 1982, during the pendency of a valid proceeding under the OPLE Act, 1972, constitutes a colourable exercise of power and violates the doctrine of harmonious construction between co-existing statutes. The RDA, being a creature of statute, cannot traverse beyond its territorial or subject-matter competence to encroach upon a domain statutorily entrusted to the revenue authorities.
(ii) The impugned notice, issued without jurisdiction and during sub judice consideration before the Collector, is vitiated by non-
application of mind, procedural impropriety, and malice in law. It also offends the constitutional guarantees of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Reliance was placed upon the principles laid down in S.G. Jaisinghanim (supra) and Maneka Gandhi (supra) emphasized that administrative power must be exercised in conformity with the rule of law and on relevant considerations.
(iii) Accordingly, it was prayed that the show-cause notice dated 21.09.2017 issued under Section 91 of the ODA Act be quashed as Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 ultra vires, arbitrary, and actuated by collateral motives, and that the Petitioner's claim for regularization and lease allotment be directed to be considered by the Collector, Sundargarh in accordance with law.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.3, 4 & 6/STATE:
4. Learned Counsel for the State, opposing the Writ Petition, submitted as follows:
(i) In respect of the first relief sought, it was submitted that the impugned notice was issued by the Rourkela Development Authority (RDA)under the provisions of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982; hence, the RDA (Opposite Party No.5), being the competent statutory authority, alone is answerable to the said action. The State Government has no direct role in the present case.
(ii) As regards the second relief, it was contended that under the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, no revenue authority possesses plenary power to sanction lease or NOC without prior compliance with the mandatory preconditions prescribed therein. The Petitioner has neither fulfilled those requirements nor approached the competent authority in the prescribed form.
Consequently, the writ petition is premature, misconceived, and devoid of enforceable cause of action.
Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
(iii) The Petitioner was proceeded against in Encroachment Case No.10 of 2007 under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 for unauthorized occupation of Government land measuring Ac.0.750 dec., wherein rent and penalty of ₹577.50 were deposited. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Lease Case No.34/2009 for lease of Ac.0.152 dec. under Plot No.370/399(P), Khata No.9, Rourkela Town Unit-III, for establishment of a socio-cultural institution. The Land Allotment Committee (LAC), in its meeting dated 13.09.2010, rejected the proposal on the ground that the land formed part of a contiguous Government parcel of Ac.108.00 earmarked for an integrated housing project, and that alienation of any portion thereof would prejudice the planned development scheme.
(iv) Upon subsequent references from the RDC (Northern Division), Sambalpur, the matter was reconsidered by the LAC in its meeting dated 20.09.2014, which resolved to consider the proposal subject to fulfilment of the following statutory preconditions:
a. submission of a detailed land-use plan;
b. an undertaking to pay premium at prevailing commercial rate c. obtaining NOC from the Home Department in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; d. Procurement of pollution clearance from the SPCB e. Submission of a detailed report by the Tahasildar, Rourkela regarding the Petitioner's activities. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56
(v) The Petitioner was duly intimated to comply with these conditions before further consideration by the Committee.
(vi) Pursuant to the said decision and in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015, the ADM, Sundargarh, vide letter dated 06.06.2015, requested the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela to verify the antecedent of the petitioner's institution.
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.5/ ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:
5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.5/ Rourkela Development Authority earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The allegations raised the Writ Petition are misconceived. The Petitioner has not yet been evicted as alleged. Only the use of the illegal constructions without any approved plan over the encroached Government land have been directed to be sealed under Section-92(2) of the ODA Act. The said order has not yet been executed and as such this Writ Petition appears to be premature.
(ii) The constructions over the Government land in question without any approved plan is being used as Kalyan Mandap for commercial purposes with profit motive by the Petitioner.
Therefore, the Opposite Party No.5/ Rourkela Development Authority in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction has initiated a Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 proceeding which is pending. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as premature.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record:
(i)Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, this Court finds that the present case herein traverses the interstice between territorial jurisdictional overlapand statutory harmony in the exercise of concurrent administrative powers.
(ii) The Rourkela Development Authority, constituted under the ODA Act, exercises control over development, construction, and regulation of land within its notified planning area. The Collector and the revenue authorities, on the other hand, derive jurisdiction under the OPLE Act and the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015to adjudicate matters of regularization and lease of Government land. These statutory domains, though intersecting in object, are distinct in scope and competence.
(iii) In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner's lease proposal was under active consideration before the Collector, Sundargarh, pursuant to the RDC's directive and in accordance with a Resolution passed in 2015. The initiation of a parallel proceeding by the RDA under Section 91, in relation to the very same parcel of land, during the pendency of lease adjudication, constitutes an instance of administrative incongruity. Such Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 exercise, though cloaked in legality, offends the doctrine of institutional discipline and manifests a colourable exercise of power.
(iv) It is trite that administrative action must conform to the principle of jurisdictional restraint and procedural propriety. Where the legislature has conferred exclusive competence upon one statutory authority, a coordinate body cannot arrogate unto itself such power and the said principle has been clearly echoed in State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co3.The RDA, in invoking Section 91 of the ODA Act without awaiting the outcome of proceedings before the Collector, acted in derogation of the State's own policy and thereby transgressed the limits of its delegated authority
(v) Furthermore, the impugned notice bears no indication of application of mind to the pending lease proceedings or the Petitioner's compliance under the OPLE Act. Absence of such consideration renders the action vulnerable on the touchstone of arbitrariness and malice in law. The jurisprudence of Maneka Gandhi (supra) and Jaisinghani (supra) reaffirms that administrative discretion, however broad, is circumscribed by the imperatives of fairness, reasoned decision-making, and constitutional propriety.
3 (1988) 4 SCC 59 Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 VI. CONCLUSION:
7. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned show-cause notice dated 21.09.2017, issued under Section 91 of the ODA Act, is without jurisdiction, procedurally defective, and constitutionally infirm. The same stands vitiated by non-application of mind, institutional impropriety, and colourable exercise of power. Accordingly, the said notice is hereby quashed and set aside. The Collector, Sundargarh is directed to dispose of the Petitioner's lease proposal strictly in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015 and applicable laws, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy this judgment/ order.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st October, 2025/ Page 11 of 11