Orissa High Court
Tuni Maharana vs State Of Odisha & Others on 9 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 3021 of 2023
(An appeal against order dated 01.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.35214 of 2023)
..... Appellant
Tuni Maharana
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ..... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Pratap Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Subha Bikash Panda,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :23rd December, 2025 Date of judgment :9thJanuary, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35214 of 2023. The writ application was filed by the appellant-petitioner with the following prayer:
"The petitioner thus prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opposite parties to consider the mercy representation of the Petitioner, as per Annexure-1, within a time to be fixed by the Hon'ble Court and failing consider, the Petitioner may not be dispossessed from her only habitat over an area of A0.110 dec. out of hal W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 1 of 7 settlement plot no.263/9881, in Mouza Gadkana under Mancheswar PS, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda."
2. The appellant-petitioner had annexed to the writ petition her application dated 13.02.2023 for settlement of an area of A0.110 dec., in Mouza Gadkana under Mancheswar PS in the district of Khurda bearing Plot No.263/9881 situated within the limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The appellant-petitioner has claimed that she works as a Anganwadi Worker having been appointed by Memo No.565 dated 16.08.1984 in the Integrated Child Development Services (I.C.D.S.) Project, Bhubaneswar.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the petitioner-appellant is encroacher of the Government land in the State Capital Region within the municipal limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and is not entitled to any relief sought for in the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and has been passed after consideration of the relevant materials on record and correct appreciation of the applicable of law.
4. We have gone through the writ petition, the memo of appeal. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We give further reasons for rejecting the prayer in the appeal.
5. The petitioner though works as Anganwadi Worker in the ICDS Project, which is a project under the Government of Odisha, concededly has encroached government land belonging to the W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 2 of 7 General Administration Department within the municipal limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC). The petitioner in the writ application has not disclosed any right of her to encroach government land, i.e. public property.
6. For rejecting the prayer of the appellant-petitioner, we rely upon the earlier decision rendered by this Court in W.A. No.975 of 2021 judgment dated 25.01.2022 (Tophan Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & others) reported in 2022 (I) ILR - CUT -289.
By the said judgment a coordinate Bench of this Court confirmed the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.26041 of 2017. It has been held by this Court in Tophan Kumar Behera (supra) relying upon decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-10 and 11 that plea of adverse possession would be untenable against Government, which are reproduced herein:
"10. Regarding the plea of the adverse possession, it has been specifically averred on behalf of respondent no.1-G.A. Department, Government of Odisha, who owns all the Government land within the area of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation that the appellant's plea of adverse possession is untenable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others : (2004) 10 SCC 779 and Krishna Murthy S Setlur v. O.V Narasimha Setty : (2007) 3 SCC 569.
11. The decision in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) at para-11, page-784 of SCC, lays down that ".........It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 3 of 7 owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over statutory period".
As noted above, none of the conditions as laid in the Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) is satisfied by the appellant inasmuch as, he had never tried to prove the factum of adverse possession in a properly constituted proceeding, before a civil court of jurisdiction, rather, opted to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, based on disputed questions of fact.
7. In Tophan Kumar Behera (supra) the coordinate Bench also relied upon the decision in Krishna Murty S Setlur and Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur : (2019) 8 SCC 729 to reject the contention of adverse possession taken by the appellant-petitioner against the Government, G.A. Department i.e. the recorded owner of the land.
8. From the pleadings in the writ petition and the writ appeal, it is apparent that the petitioner-appellant has not made out a case under the provision of Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 or the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983. Further the said Act is not applicable to the land situated in the State capital Bhubaneswar which belongs to the General Administration Department. We rely upon paragraphs-21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment in Tophan Kumar Behera (supra) which are reproduced herein:
"21. To consider the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant regarding applicability of OGLS Act, 1962, it requires determination as to whether the OGLS Act, 1962 is/was applicable to the area within the limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, which are owned by General Administration Department, the relevant provisions are quoted herein :
Section 8 of the 1962 Act (inserted vide Odisha Act No.2 of 1990) provides as follows :W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 4 of 7
8. Delegation of power:- The Government may by notification in the Official Gazette direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act shall, subject to such conditions, if any , as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by any authority not below the rank of a Revenue Officer.
(Emphasis Supplied) Rule 11 of the 1983 Rules provides as follows :
11. Authorities competent to dispose settlement -
Disposal of application for settlement of land for various purposes shall be made by the authorities specified in Schedule II up to the extent mentioned therein. All other cases for settlement of land shall be referred to the Government for orders.
(Emphasis Supplied) The Schedule II of the 1983 Rules provides as follows :
SCHEDULE II [See Rule 11] POWER TO SANCTION SETTLEME'NT OF GOVERNMENT LAND Sl. No. In whose Officer In rural In urban area favour exercising area excluding powers Bhubaneswar, Rourkela, Sunabeda (Emphasis Supplied)
22. A conjoint reading of Section-8 of the Act, 1962, Rule-11 & Schedule II of the Rules, 1983, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Government had not delegated the power to settle Government land in the urban area of Bhubaneswar, under the provisions of the OGLS Act, 1962 and the 1983 Rules. Therefore, the appellant's contention to take benefit of the OGLS Act, 1962 under Section 3(4)(a) would be untenable as per the statutory scheme, the Government land in the urban area of Bhubaneswar having been specifically excluded from the purview of the exercises of power by any delegatee under the OGLS Act, 1962 and Rules, 1983, as amended.
xxx xxx xxx
24. Although it is not the pleaded case, a further development, which could have a bearing on the case of the appellant, is that after the repeal of Government Grants Act, W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 by the Govt. of India w.e.f. 5.1.2018, the State of Odisha has amended the Rules, 1983 by OGLS (Second amendment) Rules, 2020. The said Amendment Rule was published in the Gazette on 08.09.2020.
25. By the amendment Rules, 2020, Rule 5AA has been introduced along with Schedule IV-A. Rule 5-AA provides as follows :
"5-AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 3, 5, 8, 10,11, 13 and 14, settlement of Government land situated within the limits of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area shall be made in the manner prescribed in Schedule IV-A".
(Emphasis Supplied) The newly introduced Schedule-IV-A provides as follows :
"Schedule-IV-A (See rule-5-AA) Rules for settlement of Government land situated within the limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Area.
26. A reading of the new amended Rules, 1983, amended w.e.f. 8th September, 2020, would go to show that a non-obstante clause has been introduced by inserting Rule-5AA, therefore, the Rule 5-AA and Schedule-IV-A are to operate notwithstanding the exception carved out earlier, in Schedule- II read with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1983.
After the amendment, 2020, in view of the nonobstante clause, the land owned by Govt., G.A. Department, conterminous to the area of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, can be allotted as per the procedure prescribed in the newly introduced Rules : "Schedule-IV-A", read with Rule 5-AA of Rules, 1983, but such settlement of Govt. land, situated within the limits of BMC area is to be made by the authority specified, i.e., "Land Allotment Committee"
constituted as per Rule 3 of the Rules (Schedule-IV-A) and for the purposes as specified in Rule 2 (Schedule IV-A), which defines "purpose for settlement".
xxx xxx xxx"
[underlined to supply emphasis]
9. By filing RVWPET No.20 of 2022 the judgment dated 25.01.2022 in W.A. No.975 of 2021 in Tophan Kumar Behera(supra) W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 6 of 7 was sought to be reviewed. The said review application was dismissed by judgment dated 25.04.2022.
10. Apart from confirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.35214 of 2023 in view of above discussions, the writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Now no costs.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th January,2026 Gs/Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:17:04 W.A. No.3021 of 2023 Page 7 of 7