Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Barik & Ors vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026
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: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2025
along with
bath of cases
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Purna Chandra Barik & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv.
Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
Mr. Karunakar Rath, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Adv.
(for proposed intervenors)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:17.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-09.01.2026
(W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2025 along with W.P.(C) Nos.28055 of
2025 with CONTC Nos.4571 of 2025 and 4572 of 2025)
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since both the Writ Petitions and the contempt petitions arise out of the same factual background and involve the same issue, those were heard together. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2025 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters.
Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48
2. In W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2025, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to restrain the opposite parties from taking any coercive eviction or demolition action in respect of the market complexes, to enforce compliance with this Court's earlier order dated 23.06.2025, and to ensure a fair, consultative process with due consideration to livelihood and rehabilitation before undertaking road-widening or drainage works.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The dispute concerns proposed eviction/demolition affecting shop rooms in Golden Jubilee Market Complex and Arunodaya Market Complex within Balasore Municipality, connected to road widening/drainage work in Balasore town.
(ii) The market complexes are stated to be situated over land under Khata No. 405, Mouza Bhaskarganj, P.S. Balasore Town, Unit No. 10, Balasore; the land is described as recorded in the name of the Public Works Department (PWD), Odisha.
(iii) The Petitioners claim that there are 50+ shop rooms in the said complexes and that the shops have been in operation for over 30 years, with Petitioners being shop room owners/occupiers dependent on the shops for livelihood.
(iv) In August 2024, notices/communications were issued by Balasore Municipality asking shop owners to vacate; the Petitioners also refer to a representation made by a market complex action committee in response.
Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48
(v) The Petitioners approached the High Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 7347 of 2025, and a connected matter W.P.(C) No. 6156 of 2025 was also pending; the two matters were subsequently heard together.
(vi) On 13.03.2025, an interim order was passed in the earlier writ proceedings directing that no coercive action be taken against the shopkeepers pursuant to the eviction/demolition steps, till the next date of listing.
(vii) On 13.05.2025, the this Court appointed Court Commissioners to inspect the site and examine the extent of road obstruction, status of shop ownership/tenancy/sub-letting, and to explore a solution balancing development work with livelihoods.
(viii) The Court Commissioners conducted inspection on 24.05.2025 and filed an inspection report; the Petitioners rely on the report to contend the complexes were not obstructing the existing road, while the opposite parties maintain the structures constitute encroachment affecting the project.
(ix) By a common order dated 23.06.2025, the High Court disposed of the earlier writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 7347/2025 and 6156/2025) and directed the Collector, Balasore to form a committee comprising the Collector, Sub-Collector/SDM, Executive Officer (Balasore Municipality), Tahasildar Sadar, and Superintending Engineer, PWD, to visit the spot, convene a meeting with shopkeepers, and ensure completion of the 400- meter road widening and related drainage work.
(x) The order dated 23.06.2025 also recorded that the committee should explore a fair/balanced solution considering road widening, drainage Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 construction, shopkeepers' livelihood and public convenience, and stated that no coercive action be taken against shopkeepers till the Collector reaches a conclusion.
(xi) Pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2025, a committee meeting/spot visit is stated to have been held on 18.09.2025 at 10:00 A.M, involving officials including the district administration, municipal authorities, and PWD.
(xii) The opposite parties state that in the meeting dated 18.09.2025, the proposed road breadth was reduced from 22 meters to 18 meters (from the median) and shopkeepers were asked to vacate within 7 days; the Petitioners contend the authorities did not follow the mandated consultative process and proceeded towards coercive steps.
(xiii) The Petitioners state that on 20.09.2025, Balasore Municipality made a public announcement directing shopkeepers to vacate within 7 days and indicating demolition for road widening; the opposite parties state that notices were issued consistent with the committee decision.
(xiv) The Petitioners state that they wrote to the Collector on 23.09.2025 requesting resolution consistent with the High Court order and seeking restraint on any coercive action; the opposite parties state shopkeepers also sought deferment in view of Durga Puja, and the administration kept eviction in abeyance for that period.
(xv) The opposite parties describe the project as road widening/drainage work on the OT Road stretch from Station Chhak to Fakir Mohan Golei, with 400 meters pending, and assert the structures are encroachments on road/Nayanajori plots; the Petitioners dispute that the structures are Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 encroachments and rely on earlier administrative dealings and rent- related documents.
(xvi) The opposite parties refer to prior litigation in W.P.(C) No. 41233/2021 and CONTC No. 3697/2022 in relation to eviction/demolition actions; the Petitioners' case is that the current demolition steps must still comply with due process and the this Court's order dated 23.06.2025. (xvii) After the events of September 2025, the opposite parties state that fresh writ petitions (W.P.(C) No. 28085/2025 and W.P.(C) No. 28055/2025) and contempt petitions (CONTC No. 4572/2025 and CONTC No. 4571/2025) were filed; the Petitioners' pleadings challenge the legality of coercive steps and seek protection/rehabilitation.
(xviii) Both sides rely on documents including rent notices/agreements/receipts, Tahasildar communications (including Letter No. 4032 dated 07.05.2004), site inspection material, and ROR/land- status documents, to support their respective stands on permissive occupation versus encroachment.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The proposed eviction/demolition is attacked as arbitrary, highhanded, and without due process of law, violating Petitioners' right to trade and livelihood and other constitutional protections.
(ii) The Petitioners contend that the authorities are acting in violation of the High Court order dated 23.06.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos. 7347/2025 & 6156/2025, which mandated exploration of a fair solution through a Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 Collector-led committee and expressly restrained coercive action until conclusion.
(iii) They plead wilful and deliberate disregard of the Court's directions, because the authorities allegedly issued coercive public announcements without convening discussions/consultations or arriving at a committee resolution within the stipulated time.
(iv) The Petitioners contend that the Court Commissioner's inspection/report supports them: the complexes were found not to obstruct the existing four-lane road, and therefore demolition is unnecessary for expansion;
they argue the State has not disclosed proper plan/layout or technical necessity for demolition.
(v) They argue that the market complexes are not "sudden encroachments"
but exist due to an earlier administrative decision allowing construction at shop owners' cost, with drains built for public utility, and the State's long acquiescence, supervision, and rent collection show recognition of possession and permissive occupation.
(vi) They contend that the authorities cannot, after decades of rent collection and assurances of lease/agreement, abruptly resort to bulldozer action without initiating proceedings under the applicable statute, which they assert is mandatory as per Supreme Court jurisprudence on eviction/demolition.
(vii) The Petitioners press rehabilitation as an essential equity/public-law requirement: even if development is undertaken, shopkeepers who have earned livelihood for 30+ years cannot be displaced without identifying Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 and allotting a suitable alternate site/market complex or otherwise protecting livelihood.
(viii) They assert mala fides and unequal treatment by alleging the authorities are not touching constructions on the other side of the road while targeting their complexes, and that news reports/clippings are being used to manufacture urgency and justify demolition.
(ix) They invoke the Supreme Court's directions in W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022 concerning nationwide illegal demolitions, pleading that demolition guidelines laid down therein are being violated, since the authorities are proceeding without adhering to those safeguards.
(x) They deny the opposite side's narrative of waterlogging/drain obstruction, stating the alleged "Mahanala" is far away, drains were built by shop owners, and no complaints/records are produced to show congestion or public safety threat attributable to these complexes.
(xi) They contend that rent receipts, rent notices, Tahasildar correspondence (including fixation of rent and talk of agreement/lease), and municipal agreements collectively establish that the Petitioners have not approached the Court with unclean hands and that the "encroacher"
label is factually and legally disputed.
(xii) They seek reliefs declaring the demolition/road expansion action illegal for non-compliance with the order dated 23.06.2025, directing the authorities to first hold committee meetings and explore a fair balanced modality, and alternatively directing rehabilitation/allotment of suitable place and restraining coercive action until such rehabilitation.
Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs because the petitioners seek to protect unauthorized encroachments over PWD land/road and Nayanajori.
(ii) The petitioners' prayer that eviction/demolition should not proceed unless they are rehabilitated is opposed on the ground that no legal right exists to claim rehabilitation for an illegal/unauthorized structure raised on public road/drain land.
(iii) The petitioners are encroachers, not "street vendors," hence the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is stated to be inapplicable to them.
(iv) The encroachment is said to obstruct a public road and drainage system, causing waterlogging and hampering public movement; therefore, eviction/demolition is justified as a public interest measure for road widening and drainage construction.
(v) The opposite parties contend the petitioners have resorted to repeated litigations on the same subject, fresh writ petitions after earlier disposal, amounting to multiplicity and abuse of process; the subsequent writ petitions are asserted to be barred by principles akin to res judicata/constructive res judicata and lack fresh cause of action.
(vi) The contempt petitions filed by the petitioners are said to be not entertainable because the authorities were complying with the order Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 dated 23.06.2025 by constituting the committee, conducting spot visit, and taking steps to implement the 400m widening direction.
(vii) The opposite parties contend that the petitioners, by filing multiple proceedings, are diluting the subject matter and attempting to create obstacles in the execution of Court directions; they even allege petitioners' conduct warrants action such as suo motu contempt (as pleaded).
(viii) The authorities emphasize procedural fairness/compliance: a committee was formed as per Court's order, a meeting was held with participation/representation permitted, and road width was even reduced from 22m to 18m to balance interests, showing reasonableness and lack of arbitrariness.
(ix) The petitioners' claim of running business for "30 years" is disputed as false; the opposite parties claim the construction was unauthorized/illegal, allegedly facilitated by political patronage, and some encroachers possess more than one shop room and have sub-let for profit.
(x) The opposite parties argue that public roads and drains are meant for the general public, and no person can obstruct them; hence, the petitioners must be evicted to protect public rights and ensure civic amenities.
(xi) The government has sanctioned money and completed tendering; delay caused by encroachments is frustrating a public project, and urgency is pleaded with reference to the ensuing rainy season and waterlogging concerns.
Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48
(xii) Any alleged agreement/lease relied upon by the petitioners is attacked as invalid/unregistered, and therefore incapable of conferring enforceable rights; the petitioners cannot rely on such documents to resist eviction.
(xiii) Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's jurisprudence to argue that illegal encroachment on public land/roads should not be protected and unauthorized structures can be demolished in public interest.
(xiv) On merits, the writ petition is pleaded to be devoid of merit because it seeks to prioritize private commercial interest over larger public interest in road widening, drainage clearance, sanitation, and public convenience.
(xv) The opposite parties pray for dismissal of the writ petitions and for permission to proceed with eviction/demolition to complete the remaining 400 meters of road widening and drainage work in compliance with Court directions.
IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
7. The petitioners are shopkeepers operating unauthorised market structures on PWD land reserved for road widening in Balasore. They challenge the demolition notices as arbitrary and contend their long- standing trade gives them a vested right to occupy the land. Opposite parties plead that the shops are blatant encroachments on a public road project and that the State is duty bound to remove any obstruction. This Court has carefully considered the submissions in light of relevant law.
8. It is settled that public streets and roads vest in the State as trustee for public use. Citizens have no fundamental right to a specific location in a Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 public way. The right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions for public convenience. As the Supreme Court explained the case Bombay Hawkers' Union v. BMC1, no one has a right to carry on trade or business in a way that causes inconvenience in public area. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"No one has any right to do his or her trade or business so as to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to the other members of the public. Public Streets, by their very nomenclature and definition, are meant for the use of the general public. They are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private trade or business. If hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the centre of busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic life. Indeed, that is what some of them have done in some parts of the city. They have made it impossible for the pedestrians to walk on footpaths or even the streets properly so called."
9. In this context the petitioners' occupation of road land, impeding pedestrian and vehicular passage, cannot be deemed a protected right. Article 19(1)(e) (the right to reside and settle) certainly does not confer a license to trespass on public property. The structures in question have no sanction of law or valid title: if anything, the petitioners' own accounts show only permissive occupation at best. They cannot appropriate public land by virtue of paying rent or building at their own expense.
10. The petitioners also invoke Article 21 i.e. right to life and livelihood. This Court recognizes that right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life. Yet the Supreme Court has made clear that even such fundamental rights cannot be used to validate unlawful conduct. Any deprivation of 1 1985 AIR 1206.
Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 livelihood must follow just, fair and lawful procedure. Here, by contrast, the petitioners never held a statutory lease or any registered agreement, their occupation is concededly illegal from the start.
11. It must be kept in mind that while Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to life with dignity and has been expansively interpreted to include the right to livelihood, it cannot be stretched to legitimize or immunize unlawful acts or continued occupation of public property without authority of law. The constitutional guarantee of life and livelihood is not a charter for regularising encroachments or for insulating individuals from the legal consequences of acts undertaken in clear derogation of statutory norms governing public land.
12. Plethora of judicial precedents of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have consistently held that compassion, equity, or socio-economic hardship, howsoever genuine, cannot supplant the rule of law or compel the State to tolerate illegality, particularly where public roads, drains, or commons are involved and larger public interest is at stake. Aptly, the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporations2 has held as under:
"The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to 2 1986 AIR 180 Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life."
13. In the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab3 the Supreme Court confronted a similar situation of long-standing illegal use of Panchayat lad. It held the appellants to be "trespassers" who had illegally encroached on village commons and ordered their constructions removed, emphatically refusing to condone such blatant illegalities. The relevant excerpts of that judgment are produced below:
"The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village."
14. That reasoning applies with even greater force on a public highway.
Allowing petitioners to hold up a road widening project would be to reward decades of unauthorised occupancy. As Jagpal Singh (Supra) 3 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1123.
Page 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 teaches, the mere duration of illegal possession, even with expenditure on construction, does not vest a lawful right.
15. Moreover, the petitioners' contentions about due process and this Court's prior order are misplaced. The order of 23.06.2025 directed formation of a committee to meet with the shopkeepers and explore an equitable solution. The record shows that this was done: a meeting was convened on 18.09.2025 with the Collector, PWD and Municipal officials, and the petitioners' representatives. The road alignment was adjusted (from 22m to 18m) as a gesture to minimize displacement, and the shopkeepers were asked to vacate the remaining encroachment.
16. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.05.2025 appointing the learned Advocates as Court Commissioners, the report dated 24.05.2025 has been considered. The Commissioners have noted that the existing four-lane OT Road is not presently obstructed by the market complexes, that there is a gap of about 5 to 15 feet between the road edge and the structures, and that widening may, according to them, be possible with only partial demolition, coupled with mediation and rehabilitation measures. The Court also notes the observation that certain demolition markings appeared to extend beyond what may be strictly necessary for a six-lane configuration.
17. However, the report, howsoever useful as a factual snapshot and for suggesting conciliatory alternatives, does not confer any legal entitlement upon the petitioners to retain occupation of public land or to dictate the execution of a duly sanctioned public project. The Commissioners proceed on the basis of accommodation, not on any finding of lawful Page 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 right or title. The final determination of alignment, width, and technical requirements for public roads and drainage lies with the competent authorities, subject to judicial review only on grounds of manifest arbitrariness or illegality. The report does not alter the character of the land as public road land or dilute the State's obligation to ensure unobstructed roads and drainage. Consequently, the suggested alternative modalities cannot, by themselves, justify interdiction of the project or continuance of occupation in the absence of enforceable legal right.
18. In my view, the opposite parties have broadly complied with the Court's directions and have acted in good faith. In any event, the law does not mandate endless hearings or protection for unlawful occupants. Eviction of obstruction on public ways can proceed after giving only minimal notice.
19. In a similar vein, the Kerala High Court in the case of Ananthapuri Hospitals & Research Institute v Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram4 held as follows:
"Thus, even summary eviction of encroachment from public streets or footpaths can be resorted to and notice itself is not necessary when the Secretary is satisfied that 'encroachment causes obstruction or hindrance or inconvenience to traffic and users of the street'. There is no reason to assume that encroachment on the footways and the area in front of the petitioner hospital is not causing obstruction, hindrance or inconvenience to traffic, including for ambulances and other users of the street. Therefore, encroachments can be removed even without any such notice in the instant case." 4
WP(C) NO. 8177 OF 2023.
Page 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48
20. That is what precisely the present situation exists. The Street Vendors Act, 2014, which protects licensed vendors, cannot bootstrap rights onto these illegal shop structures like the present ones.
21. In balancing interests, the State's duty to keep roads free and to execute civic projects outweighs any residual claim of petitioners. Their claim of legitimate occupation finds no support in law. The petitioners have sought alternate site or compensation, but no statutory scheme entitles them to rehabilitation as of right, they are not lawful licensees, but trespassers on public land. The demolition guidelines of the Supreme Court, invoked by petitioners, underscore fair process generally, but they do not legitimize encroachment. Here opposite parties acted on clear title to public land and pressing flood/drainage needs; any delay or short notice was merited by urgent public interest (rainy season flooding, etc). Indeed, the authorities even adjusted the plan to accommodate the petitioners as far as feasible.
22. Having dealt with eviction and demolition disputes on the judicial side often enough, this Court has seen a recurring pattern: if unauthorised occupation of roads, drains and other common spaces is permitted to continue for years, the very public record begins to be gaslit into irrelevance, and illegality is projected as normal, settled, and "accepted". That is how a public way slowly becomes private territory. The longer such occupation persists, the stronger the false sense of entitlement becomes, and when the administration finally acts, a routine enforcement step risks turning into a law and order situation. For this reason, prevention of land encroachment is not a narrow municipal concern. It is Page 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:10:48 a governance necessity that protects shared civic infrastructure, maintains equality in enforcement, and preserves public confidence that the rule of law applies uniformly. Viewed thus, timely and lawful removal of encroachments is preventive in character, aimed at ensuring public convenience, administrative credibility and social peace.
V. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION:
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions.
The petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The challenge to the eviction and demolition action is accordingly rejected. W.P.(C) Nos.28055 of 2025 and 28085 of 2025 stand dismissed. The connected contempt petitions are also dropped as disposed of, the record disclosing that the authorities have acted in substantial compliance with the directions issued by this Court earlier.
24. In the end, this Court directs the Balasore Municipality in coordination with the District Administration to form a monitoring committee to periodically monitor the encroachment situation in Balasore town and take appropriate measure to prevent the encroachers who are long possessing the government land by way of unauthorised occupation.
25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan, 2026/ Page 17