Orissa High Court
Simanchal Palei And Anr vs Collector on 19 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3313 of 2015
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Simanchal Palei and Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Collector, Ganjam and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-04.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-19.08.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice issued by the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad under Section 6(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972 in Encroachment Case No. 156/2014. The notice directed removal of construction over Page 1 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 land in Mouza-Chikili, Khata No. 625, Plot No. 1326, part of a total area of Ac. 0.228 dec.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The land in question (Plot No. 1326, Khata No. 625) is recorded in the
name of the Government in the Record of Rights.
(ii) Petitioners state that they have been in possession of about Ac. 0.070
dec. of the land for over two decades, during which a pucca house was constructed and is being used for residence. Earlier encroachment proceedings were initiated against them in Encroachment Case No. 256/2009 and Encroachment Case No. 156/2014.
(iii) In 2014, villagers of Chikili filed W.P.(C) No. 19745/2014 in the nature of a PIL, seeking eviction of the petitioners. They also submitted a representation to the Collector, Ganjam. By order dated 22.10.2014, the High Court requested the Collector to consider and dispose of the representation on its own merits, after hearing both sides.
(iv) Pursuant to the High Court's order, the Collector, Ganjam issued notices to both the petitioners and villagers (O.P. Nos. 4-12), fixing the hearing on 29.11.2014.
(v) The petitioners filed a counter affidavit before the Collector, asserting possession over portions of the land for decades. They also placed reliance on Green Card status of petitioner no.1 and submitted related documents.
(vi) The Collector disposed of the villagers' representation. The petitioners later obtained a copy of the Collector's order dated 08.01.2015 through Page 2 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 RTI, which recorded directions to the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad to take steps for eviction of encroachment over the land.
(vii) Following this, the Tahasildar issued notice dated 12.02.2015 under Section 6(1) OPLE Act to the petitioners, directing them to remove the alleged encroachment within 10 days, failing which the action of dispossession would follow.
(viii) The counter affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 was sworn by the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad, Kailash Chandra Murmu, who is Opposite Party No. 3, duly authorized to depose on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2.
(ix) In the said counter affidavit, the deponent affirmed that he had examined the writ petition and annexures, was acquainted with the facts of the case, and competent to swear the affidavit.
(x) The counter affidavit records the stand of the authorities that the petitioners' writ petition is directed against the Section 6(1) notice in Encroachment Case No.156/2014 in relation to land which is part of Government khata.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Collector's order dated 08.01.2015 is without jurisdiction because under the OPLE Act, the Collector has no power to direct eviction; only the Tahasildar can decide encroachment cases, with statutory appeals and revisions provided.Page 3 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
(ii) Section 8-A of the OPLE Act mandates that where a person has been in continuous, undisputed possession for over 30 years, the Tahasildar must refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for settlement of land in favour of the possessor. The Petitioners argue that they satisfied this requirement, but this was ignored.
(iii) The notice under Section 6(1) OPLE Act is illegal because the provision does not contemplate direct eviction or dispossession; it only allows notice of obstruction removal. Hence the eviction direction is ultra vires the statute.
(iv) Petitioners argue that as landless and homesteadless persons (and as Green Card holders), they are entitled to settlement of the land (up to Ac. 0.08 dec.), but this policy entitlement was not considered by the authorities.
(v) The land in dispute, though recorded as "Godanda," had lost its character as a road for over 20 years, as found in enquiry reports of Revenue Inspector and Tahasildar themselves. Villagers were using other plots (No. 1331, 1331/3622) as roadways. These reports were ignored by the Collector.
(vi) The Collector acted beyond the scope of the High Court's direction in W.P.(C) No.19745/2014 wherein this Court had merely asked him to consider and dispose of the villagers' representation as per law, but he went further and ordered eviction, which is not legally permissible under the OPLE framework.
Page 4 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
(vii) The demolition of the petitioners' house during pendency of the writ petition, allegedly based on the Collector's illegal order, is arbitrary and caused damage. Petitioners seek compensation for the illegality.
(viii) Withdrawal of the Green Card Scheme by the government in 2012 cannot retrospectively divest petitioner No.1's accrued right under the scheme since he had already been issued a Green Card in 1994. Hence, he continues to be entitled to settlement of homestead land.
(ix) The petitioners contend that denial of settlement and issuance of eviction notice, despite statutory protection and policy benefits, is illegal, arbitrary, and warrants intervention of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The opposite parties contend that petitioner no.2 had no legal authority to transfer any portion of the encroached land to petitioner no.1 because the land stands in Government khata, the Government being the sole owner.
(ii) They assert that the land in question is recorded in official records as "Danda" (road) under Plot No. 1326, Khata No. 625, and continues to exist as such in the Tahasil records. The claim of the petitioners that the land had been treated as "Homestead" in encroachment cases is false.
While the encroachment notice (Form "Ka") recorded "homestead" as the mode of use by the encroacher, the actual classification (kissam) of the land remains "Danda".
Page 5 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
(iii) The petitioners' reliance on the Green Card scheme is untenable because the Government of Odisha, Health & Family Welfare Department, had withdrawn the scheme with effect from 09.11.2012, vide letter no. 29055 dated 09.11.2012. Therefore, any claim for settlement under the withdrawn scheme cannot be sustained.
(iv) The Opposite Parties justify their action by pointing out that the eviction proceedings were carried out in obedience to the High Court's order dated 22.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 19745 of 2014, and pursuant to the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam's instruction dated 18.01.2015. Notices were duly issued to the petitioners, who failed to appear, and eviction was therefore initiated as per due process.
(v) It is further contended that the Collector, Ganjam, had jurisdiction to pass orders in the matter after hearing both sides as directed by the High Court. The Collector accordingly directed the Tahasildar to proceed with eviction, and the action was taken within the scope of the OPLE Act, 1972.
(vi) The land in dispute, recorded under Khata No. 625 as Government khata (Sarbasadharana), is not settleable in nature. The petitioners' claim of over 40 years' possession is denied as false, and they are stated not to fulfill the eligibility criteria for settlement of Government land. Hence, eviction was justified.
(vii) The Tahasildar, who is under the purview of district revenue administration, is bound to carry out instructions of the Collector and orders of the Court. The eviction notice was therefore issued in Page 6 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 compliance with such instructions, and the process is asserted to be lawful.
(viii) The fact of petitioner no.1 holding a Green Card may be genuine, but respondents argue that no such claim was made before the Tahasildar during encroachment proceedings or at the stage of hearing before the Collector. Moreover, since the scheme stood withdrawn in 2012, no benefit can accrue to the petitioner from it.
(ix) Opposite Parties insist that notices under Section 6(1) were duly issued and served on the petitioners, affording sufficient time to comply. Allegations of dispossession without notice are categorically denied as incorrect.
(x) On the basis of these submissions, the Opposite Parties argue that the prayers made by the petitioners are devoid of merit, that the writ petition itself is without substance, and hence it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
6. From the rival submissions, the main questions arising for determination are: (a) Whether the Collector, Ganjam's intervention and order dated 08.01.2015 directing eviction of the Petitioners was without jurisdiction under the OPLE Act, and if so, its effect on the subsequent proceedings; (b) Whether the Petitioners have acquired any right to remain on the land by virtue of long possession (including any Page 7 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 statutory right under Section 8-A of OPLE Act or otherwise), or under the erstwhile "Green Card" policy, overriding the Government's title;
(c) Whether the impugned notice under Section 6(1) OPLE Act and the eviction of Petitioners can be said to be illegal or procedurally infirm; and (d) If the actions of the Opposite Parties are found to be improper, what relief (including any compensation or rehabilitation) the Petitioners are entitled to.
7. The Court finds considerable force in the Petitioners' submission that the Collector had no original jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction in an encroachment matter under the scheme of the OPLE Act. The Act of 1972 provides a self-contained mechanism to deal with unauthorised occupation of Government land. Normally, the Tahasildar, or authorised Revenue Officer at the Tahasil level, is the competent authority to initiate encroachment proceedings (Section 4, 5 etc.) and to order eviction under Section 6, after due inquiry. The Act (Sections 10, 12 etc.) then provides appeals/revisions to higher authorities (Sub- Divisional Officer, Collector or Board of Revenue, as the case may be). In the present case, instead of allowing the statutory process to be completed, or availed by the aggrieved party, the matter was, in effect, short-circuited by the Collector acting on a representation in a PIL. While the High Court in W.P.(C) 19745/2014 had requested the Collector to consider the villagers' grievance "as per law," it did not and could not confer upon the Collector a jurisdiction which the statute does not. The Collector could have forwarded the complaints to the Page 8 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 concerned Tahasildar or monitored the issue. But here, after hearing both sides, the Collector peremptorily directed eviction.
8. This course of action bypassed the Petitioners' right to be dealt with by the designated competent authority and to file statutory appeal, etc. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that when a statute prescribes a particular authority and procedure for doing an act, that mode of action must be strictly followed, and all other modes are foreclosed. To this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Verghese & Ors vs Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors1has affirmed that if a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all.
9. In the instant case, the OPLE Act vested the power to evict encroachers in the Tahasildar (subject to appeal/revision), impliedly prohibiting the Collector from exercising that power directly in the first instance. The Collector's order dated 08.01.2015, howsoever well-intentioned, was therefore ultra vires the Act. Any action founded solely on such an order would be legally infirm.
10. That said, it is notable that the Tahasildar did issue the impugned notice under Section 6(1) in his own name and authority, even if prompted by the Collector's direction. Arguably, the Tahasildar had independently initiated Encroachment Case 156/2014 earlier, so he did have jurisdiction to proceed. The core issue is that the Tahasildar's discretion was overshadowed by the Collector's command. The Tahasildar treated eviction as a fait accompli, without independently 1 AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1281 Page 9 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 considering the Petitioners' entitlements, like Section 8-A claim, on merits. In effect, the Collector's interference foreclosed the Petitioners' opportunity to a fair decision at the first tier. In law, such an interference vitiates the proceeding. On this ground alone, the impugned eviction notice cannot be sustained, as it was issued under dictation of an authority not contemplated by the statute. This Court, therefore, holds that the Collector's action was without jurisdiction and the eviction order dated 08.01.2015 is liable to be quashed. The consequential notice of the Tahasildar dated 12.02.2015, to the extent it was a direct outcome of the said Collector's order without independent application of mind, is also unsustainable in law.
11. At the same time, it is well settled that a person in unauthorized occupation of public land cannot claim any legal or fundamental right to continue such occupation. In Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation2, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that no person has any legal right to encroach upon or construct structures on a public pathway or place meant for the public at large. The relevant excerpt is produced below:
"No person has a right to encroach by erecting a structure or otherwise on footpaths and pavements or other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose like (for e.g. garden or playground) and that the provision contained in Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is not unreasonable in the circumstances of the case."2
1986 AIR 180.
Page 10 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
12. The Petitioners here do not have any title over the land in question; it stands in the Government's name. Their long possession, by itself, confers no legitimacy against the true owner (State). At best, after a certain period, an encroacher may plead a defensive right of adverse possession in a civil suit, but even that requires uninterrupted possession for 30 years against the Government as per the Limitation Act. In the present case, the Petitioners' claim of possession for over two decadesfalls short of the 30-year mark, this is discussed separately under Section 8-A.
13. Importantly, the OPLE Act itself reflects the State's policy that encroachments on public land are not to be lightly condoned. The normal rule under the Act is eviction of unauthorised occupants after due notice (Section 6), and imposition of penalties for the period of illegal occupation (Section 5). The Act does contain a benevolent exception in Section 8-A for long-term encroachments, but that too is a qualified and conditional exception. Save for the benefit of Section 8-A, an encroacher has no legal right to remain, and the State has every authority, indeed a public duty, to remove encroachments in the public interest.
14. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that public land, especially lands reserved for common use, such as roads, pathways, ponds, etc., must be protected from private encroachments. In Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors3., a case concerning encroachment of a village common pond, the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms held that 3 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1123.
Page 11 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 such encroachments are blatant illegalities which must not be condoned. Even if squatters have built houses on the land, they must be ordered to remove them and vacate; the fact that the occupation has continued for many years or that money was spent on construction is not a justification to legitimize the illegality. The Court observed that regularisation of illegal occupations, especially on community/government land, cannot be permitted except in truly exceptional cases, such as where a long-ago lease was granted to landless persons or the land is being used for an essential public purpose like a school. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."Page 12 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
15. The present Petitioners' case does not fall in any exceptional category recognized by law. They are not holders of any lease or license; their occupation was never authorised. The land, being a "Sarbasadharana" (common) road, exists for the benefit of the community, and the Petitioners' private use of it for a dwelling is ex facie unlawful. Thus, in principle, the Petitioners cannot insist on a right to remain on the land against the State's will. They can only seek such equitable/statutory indulgence as the law may allow, e.g. consideration under Section 8-A, or rehabilitation under any policy for the poor, but not immunity from eviction.
16. Section 8-A of the OPLE Act, inserted by Orissa Act 18 of 1988, basically provides that if in course of any proceeding under Sections 4 to 8, it is found that the person in unauthorised occupation has been in continuous occupation of the land for more than thirty years, and such occupation is not disputed by the Government or any local authority, the case shall be referred to the Sub-Divisional Officer for settlement of the land in favour of the encroacher. In other words, a long-term encroacher (30+ years), who meets the criteria, is given an opportunity to get title regularised instead of being evicted, recognising the equity of long possession. The Petitioners invoke this provision. The question is whether they qualified for it, and whether the authorities ignored a mandatory duty in that regard.
17. In their pleadings, the Petitioners have asserted possession for over two decades and at places claimed over 40 years. However, no cogent evidence of a 30-year continuous, uninterrupted occupation was Page 13 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 placed before this Court. Petitioner No. 2 (father-in-law of Petitioner No. 1) appears to have occupied the land sometime in the 1990s. Petitioner No. 1 built a house around 2001 and has been residing there since. Even taking the earliest possible date from their narrative, their occupation does not span more than 30 years by the time Encroachment Case 156/2014 was initiated. It falls short of the statutory requirement. The Opposite Parties have expressly disputed the 40-year claim as false. Having considered the materials, this Court is not satisfied that the Petitioners had completed over 30 years of continuous possession prior to the initiation of the encroachment proceeding in question. Therefore, the mandatory duty to refer the case for settlement under Section 8-A was not triggered. The Tahasildar cannot be faulted for not forwarding the matter to the Sub-Collector, because the factual pre-condition (30+ years possession, not disputed) was not established.
18. It is true that the Collector's order does not explicitly deal with Section 8-A, and the Petitioners complain that this aspect was ignored. Given the finding that the Petitioners did not fulfil the 30-year criterion, the non-consideration of Section 8-A has not caused them any real prejudice. Nonetheless, the Court observes that if the Petitioners believe they have evidence to prove 30 years' continuous and undisturbed possession (for instance, by tacking Petitioner No. 2's period with Petitioner No. 1's), they still have the liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the competent authority. Any such claim must be raised and adjudicated on facts, this Court cannot assume facts to grant relief under Section 8-A in writ jurisdiction. For the present, it Page 14 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 suffices to hold that the Petitioners have not demonstrated a clear-cut right under Section 8-A that was violated. Absent the protective umbrella of Section 8-A, their status remained that of unauthorised occupants liable to eviction.
19. Petitioner No. 1's reliance on his Green Card (issued in 1994) to claim entitlement to allotment of the land deserves consideration of the legal effect of withdrawal of that scheme. The Green Card scheme was an incentive program for persons who adopted permanent family planning methods, under which certain benefits, including priority in allotment of government homestead land up to a ceiling area, were promised. However, the scheme was a policy of the executive, not a legislation. The Government was within its rights to discontinue it, which it formally did in November 2012. The Petitioners' argument is essentially one of legitimate expectation, that having been given a Green Card and promised a benefit, the State should honour it despite the scheme's cancellation. In law, such an expectation cannot prevail over a valid change in policy, unless the claimant can show a vested, crystallized right. Here, Petitioner No. 1 had no allotment or sanction in his favour; he only had a contingent hope under the scheme. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also yields when overriding public interest or impracticability necessitates recall of a concession.
20. Applying these principles, the Court concludes that Petitioner No. 1's status as a Green Card holder gave him no legally enforceable right to demand settlement of the encroached land after the scheme's repeal. At most, before the scheme was withdrawn, he had a right to be Page 15 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 considered for allotment as per the scheme guidelines. But he did not secure any allotment in that period. Once the scheme stood withdrawn, and its repeal has not been shown to be arbitrary or illegal, the Petitioners cannot base their claim on it. Furthermore, even during the scheme's currency, it is doubtful that encroaching on a particular parcel of Government land and then claiming it under the scheme was permissible. Typically, the scheme would entail applying to the administration for allotment of available waste land, not usurp a land first and then seek ex post facto regularisation by citing the Green Card. In sum, the Green Card contention does not aid the Petitioners' case in law. It cannot override the fact that their occupation is sui generis illegal.
21. It is undisputed that the revenue record classifies the land as "Danda"
(road) under Government Khata. The Petitioners' plea that the land lost its utility as a road over time does not alter its legal status. Government records and reservation of the land for a road indicate the public nature of the property. Even if, on ground reality, the villagers currently use a different route and Plot 1326 is not actively used as a thoroughfare, the land nonetheless remains part of the village's common property resources. Only the State, in its administrative wisdom, could decide to de-reserve or re-allot such land through proper procedure. An encroacher cannot unilaterally convert a public road into a private homestead by mere passage of time.
22. In the present case, the Court is mindful of the humanitarian dimension, the Petitioners are evidently persons of modest means who Page 16 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 built a shelter on what they perceived as barren unused land. However, sympathy cannot translate into a licence to violate law. The needs of the Petitioners for a homestead have to be balanced against the community's right over its common lands. The correct course for the Petitioners would have been to seek assignment of land through lawful channels (indeed, their possession of a Green Card could have been used to apply for available homestead land). By taking the route of encroachment, they took a legally untenable path. Nevertheless, if the Government now finds that Plot 1326 is indeed not required for public use, nothing prevents it from considering afresh whether any portion could be settled in favor of landless persons including Petitioners, following due process under the OPLE Act or the OGLS (Odisha Government Land Settlement) Rules. That is a matter of executive decision. As of today, the land remains Government road land, and the Petitioners had no lawful authority to occupy it. The action to evict them cannot be assailed on the ground that no one was using the road, since public property must be dealt with in accordance with law, not the convenience of encroachers.
23. The Petitioners' house was demolished on 06.03.2015, after the Section 6(1) notice period expired, and while the present writ petition, filed in February 2015, was pending. It is indeed unfortunate that the Petitioners lost the roof over their heads in the midst of seeking justice from this Court. The records show, however, that no stay of eviction was operating at that time. Legally, the mere pendency of a writ does not bar the authorities from proceeding, unless a stay or restraint order Page 17 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 is issued. That being said, prudence dictates that once a court is seized of a matter, status quo be maintained, especially when irreparable harm, like demolition of a home, is in question. The Opposite Parties assert that they proceeded only after giving due notice and because the Petitioners failed to secure any interim protection.
24. The Petitioners seek compensation for the demolition, terming it illegal and arbitrary. This raises the issue of State liability for enforcing a contested action when the dispute is sub judice. The right to property is constitutionally protected under Article 300A, no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. If the eviction was not in accordance with law, it would amount to wrongful dispossession by the State, potentially attracting a compensatory remedy under public law.
25. This Court is indeed against the practice of "bulldozer justice". But it can only be in the context of utter absence of procedure and apparent mala fide conduct. In the case at hand, the eviction, though ultimately founded on an ultra vires Collector's order, was carried out under colour of a statute (OPLE Act). The Petitioners were given notices (even if one might debate the adequacy of hearing). The Tahasildar did have an encroachment case running against them. Thus, it was not a wholly lawless action as such; it was premature and procedurally flawed due to the Collector's overreach, but not a wanton act outside the legal framework.
26. Given these distinctions, this Court is of the view that direct compensation in the writ jurisdiction may not be warranted. The Page 18 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 fundamental basis for claiming compensation would be a finding that the authorities acted grossly illegally or in violation of the Petitioners' fundamental rights. Here, the eviction was on the strength of a legal provision, its quashing now is on technical/legal grounds, not because of any malice or outrageous conduct by officials. Moreover, the Petitioners were encroachers; the structure removed was an unauthorised construction on the State's land. As a matter of principle, an encroacher cannot demand compensation for removal of an unlawful structure, otherwise it would imply rewarding illegality. This is not to say the Petitioners' loss is not real, it is indeed a hard consequence of the State enforcing public rights. But the remedy for them lies in seeking rehabilitation or ex gratia relief from the State under its policies for the shelterless, rather than monetary compensation as a matter of right.
V. CONCLUSION:
27. In view of the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following orders:
a. The order of the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam dated 08.01.2015, passed on the villagers' representation in purported compliance of order of the High Court in W.P.(C) 19745/2014, directing eviction of the Petitioners is hereby quashed and declared to have been without jurisdiction. Consequently, the eviction notice dated 12.02.2015 issued by the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad Page 19 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (Encroachment Case 156/2014) under Section 6(1) OPLE Act, which was based solely on the Collector's order, is set aside.
b. As a result, the forcible eviction/demolition effected on 06.03.2015 is rendered de hors a valid legal order. However, considering that the Petitioners' structure has already been removed and possession taken by the State, this Court, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, stops short of ordering restoration of possession, which in practical terms would serve little purpose given the Petitioners' lack of any subsisting legal right to the land. Instead, it is directed that the competent Tahasildar (Opp. Party No. 3) may initiate de novo proceedings under the OPLE Act, if so advised, to deal with the Petitioners' unauthorised occupation strictly in accordance with law.
28. While this Court quashes the impugned orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and procedural infirmity, it is made clear that the Petitioners have no enforceable right to continue in occupation of Government land. It is, however, open to the competent Tahasildar to initiate fresh proceedings under the OPLE Act, if the State so decides, to regularise the record and enforce the Government's title. The Petitioners shall be entitled to raise all permissible defences in such proceedings, but no equity flows in their favour merely by reason of this quashing.
29. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in part. Page 20 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
30. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 19th August, 2025/ Page 21 of 21