Orissa High Court
Harsh Kumar Primus Lakra vs State Of Orissa And Others on 17 October, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 756 of 2025
Harsh Kumar Primus Lakra .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 17th October, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. Though the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed by the Single Bench, yet the appellant has challenged the said judgment and order in the instant appeal.
2. At the outset, we invited the attention of the counsel appearing for the appellant as to whether the appellant can still be W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 1 of 17 regarded as an aggrieved person so as to file an appeal against the impugned order. It is the specific stand of the appellant that the single Bench did not consider the relief claimed in the writ petition in its proper perspective and, therefore, he can be regarded as an aggrieved person. We will deal with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant in support of the stand that the appellant is still an aggrieved person despite the writ petition having allowed by the single Bench as we find that the salient facts involved in the instant case as succinctly recorded in the impugned order are required to be jotted down in seriatim.
3. The dispute hovers around the right to have the settlement of land in case of an encroachment for more than thirty years contemplated under Section 8-A of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972.
3.1 According to the appellant one Rajiv Panda owned and possessed the land in question granted by the then Ruler and the father of the appellant was rendering services to the said owner and was permitted to use and utilise the said land, which was at relevant point of time water logged and unfit for habitation. According to the appellant, his father invested the labour and W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 2 of 17 money to make the land in question habitable and also constructed a house thereat, which after the death of his father continued to be used and occupied by the appellant. Even the appellant also constructed several houses, shop rooms, a well and a garden thereat and was enjoying the usufructs therefrom. 3.2 An acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 1954 by the State Government to acquire the said land for establishment of the steel plant which could not be materialised at the relevant point of time as the requisitioning authority did not intend to set up the plant thereat and reverted the said land to the Government. After reversion of the land, the appellant came to occupy the premises in 1970, which would be corroborated by the entry in the Record of Right recording the appellant's possession as forcible occupier.
3.3 Certain persons tried to invade the right created by such occupation which constrained the appellant to file Title Suit No. 2 of 1980 before the Civil Court for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property in which the decree was passed in favour of the appellant. On the basis of such decree passed by the Civil Court, mutation case No. 308/1991 was filed W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 3 of 17 before the Tahasildar, wherein the Revenue Inspector submitted the report affirming the possession of the appellant since 1961, but despite such report having filed, the Tahasildar declined to effect the mutation in favour of the appellant. The order of the Tahasildar passed in Mutation Case No. 308/1991 was challenged by the appellant in an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 3/1992 before the Appellate Authority, which was disposed of by directing the correction of the Record of Right, but the matter did not receive quietus and was placed before the Board of Revenue by the Collector, wherein the order of the appellate authority was set aside bringing a finality of mutation proceeding. 3.4 Subsequently an Encroachment Case No. 678/1993 was initiated by the Tahasildar, wherein the order of eviction was passed, although the appellant pleaded that it is a fit case for referral to the Sub-Collector under Section 8-A of the said Act of 1972. An Encroachment Appeal No. 5/1993 was filed before the Sub-Collector, Panposh, where spot verification was done by the Revenue Inspector to ascertain whether the appellant is actually and/or uninterruptedly in possession thereof. After taking into account the report and other cogent evidence adduced by the W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 4 of 17 appellant, the said appeal was disposed of with the categorical finding that the appellant's possession in respect of the disputed land is evidently proved in respect of 0.98 decimals comprised in Plot No. 123/285 and 123/286 recorded in Khata No.4. It was categorically observed by the Sub-Collector that there has been several procedural lapses noticed in the proceeding conducted by the Tahasildar and directed the Tahasildar to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. In compliance with the direction passed by the appellate authority, a further inquiry was conducted by the Tahasildar which affirms the appellant's long possession and therefore, the matter is fit enough to be referred under Section 8-A of the said Act. Consequent upon the same, Misc. Case No. 290/1993 was initiated for fixation of rent which was determined by the Tahasildar and a further direction was passed to correct the Record of Right. 3.5 Unfortunately, despite having held so, the Tahasildar did not refer the matter to the Sub-Collector under the aforesaid statutory provision, but transmitted the record to the Collector, Sundargarh, where the order of the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside. The said order of the Collector was W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 5 of 17 challenged by the appellant in the writ petition being OJC No. 1456 of 1994 before this Court, which was eventually allowed, quashing and setting aside the order of the Tahasildar and the Collector, being an outcome of non-application of mind with further direction to the Tahasildar to proceed in accordance with law, i.e. to refer the case to the Sub-Collector under Section 8-A of the said Act. Despite the order of the writ Court, Tahasildar did not take any step for more than a decade on the premises that the record is missing and untraceable.
3.6 In the interregnum a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 15654 of 2005 was filed by the Rourkela Local Displaced Association for restoration of the surplus land and preventive order wherein a status quo order was passed. The appellant also filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 11467 of 2005 alleging inaction on the part of the Tahasildar in implementing the order of the writ court, which was disposed of on 05.01.2006 by directing the Tahasildar to reconstruct the case record and dispose of the proceeding within the specified time.
3.7 Apropos the order passed by the High Court, the certified copies of all the relevant documents including the writ petitions W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 6 of 17 were submitted before the Tahasildar so that the matter may be referred under Section 8-A of the said Act, but the Tahasildar declined to comply the order because of intervening order of status quo in another writ petition as mentioned hereinabove. Subsequently the interim order in the form of status quo was varied, as a resultant effect, the ongoing construction work were allowed to continue at the disputed property. The Tahasildar ordered for demolition of the appellant's house and the other structure, which was brought to the notice of the High Court in a contempt petition, which was dismissed observing that there was no violation of the order of status quo passed in the said writ petition and the events as narrated in the contempt petition give rise to a fresh cause of action.
3.8 In the meantime, the application filed by the appellant for referring the matter to the Sub-Collector under Section 8-A of the Act stood rejected by the Tahasildar on a premise that the appellant is not in possession of the land in question. The said order was challenged in the writ petition filed by the appellant, but the same was dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy and liberty was granted to the appellant to prefer an appeal. W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 7 of 17 3.9 Pursuant to the said observation made by the writ Court, Revenue Appeal No. 25/2016 was filed before the Sub-Collector for a direction upon the Tahasildar to refer the case for settlement under Section 8-A of the said Act. Amidst the pendency of the said appeal, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8656 of 2017 was filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the land occupied by various authorities, which was dismissed on 12.05.2017 with categorical finding that the claim of compensation was premature as the appeal filed by the appellant is still pending. The intra-court appeal against the order of the single Bench stood dismissed, as a corollary the claim for compensation was considered to be premature as the right in this regard has not yet accrued and/or ripened in favour of the appellant. The Encroachment Appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of upholding the possession of the appellant in respect of a land for a period exceeding the statutory tenure and holding that it is a fit case for reference under Section 8-A of the said Act. In compliance to the said order of the appellate authority, the Tahasildar directed the spot visit to be conducted and the report revealed that the land is occupied by various authorities and, therefore, the appellant's possession is not W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 8 of 17 continued. Subsequent writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking adequate compensation as the right to claim compensation accrued upon the disposal of the said appeal wherein, the writ Court invited the opposite parties to file the counter affidavit. The opposite parties for the first time disclosed in the counter affidavit that the Tahasildar has filed Revenue Revision Case No. 2/2020 before the Collector Sundargarh against the order passed by the Appellate Authority and a direction was passed in the said writ petition to pursue the remedy before the Revisional Court. 3.10 Another writ petition was filed amidst the pendency of Revenue Revision Case No. 2/2020, claiming compensation not only in respect of the land, but also the structures which stood thereupon, which was disposed of directing the Revisional Authority to dispose of the matter within the time bound manner and also to decide the compensation subject to the outcome of the said revisional proceeding. A plea was taken before the Revisional Authority that the Tahasildar is incompetent to file revision case under Section 12 (2) of the said Act, which was negetived by an order dated 15.09.20223. Ultimately the Revisional proceeding was proceeded with and by order dated 21.06.2024 the Revisional W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 9 of 17 Authority quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority solely on the ground that the appellant was never in continuous uninterrupted possession of the land in question and the disputed land has undergone several dispossessions and is occupied by different authorities.
3.11 The order of the Collector, the Revisional Authority, is challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 21512 of 2024 with the further prayer to pay adequate and suitable compensation for demolition of the house, as well as the structure as the land belonging to the appellant has been taken away without due process of law. The single Bench vide judgment dated 13.03.2025 set aside the order of the Revisional Authority, upholding the contention of the appellant that the Tahasildar is not competent to challenge the order under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. Yet the appellant filed the instant appeal as the single Bench did not consider the other relief claimed in the writ petition pertaining to the compensation to be given to the appellant.
4. The counsel for the appellant vociferously submits that the right to the property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, the W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 10 of 17 authority must pay compensation for deprivation to use and utilize the said property belonging to the appellant.
5. The State-opposite parties took a defence that the appeal is not maintainable as the other relief claimed in the writ petition has not matured. It is further submitted that the appeal deserves dismissal.
6. The backdrop of the aforesaid facts succinctly adumbrated hereinbefore, leads to a point to be determined in the instant appeal as to whether the relief in the form of compensation in respect of the land and the structures stood thereupon can be entertained or is still regarded as premature. The OPLE Act, 1972 was enacted for prevention of unauthorized occupation of lands which are the properties of the Government and also to protect the same being further encroached. In pursuit of such avowed object discerned from the preamble of the said Act, Section 8-A was incorporated by way of an amended Act 4 of 1975 giving protection to the encroachers who are unauthorisedly occupying the land and is proved to be in actual continuous and uninterrupted occupation thereof for more than thirty years on the date of institution of the W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 11 of 17 proceeding for removal of an encroachment. The said section is reproduced as under.
"8-A. Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years.
(1) Where in the course of any proceeding instituted under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 against any person unauthorisedly occupying any land it is proved by such person that he has been in actual, continuous and undisputed occupation of the land for more than thirty years by the date of institution of the proceeding, the Tahasildar shall refer the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
(2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall give the Department of the State Government (other than the Revenue Department) to which the land belongs, an opportunity to show cause against the settlement of the land and may make such further enquiry as he deems necessary.
(3) If after making such enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied that such person has been in such occupation of the land as aforesaid, he may by order, settle the land with him and every such settlement shall be subject to such conditions, regarding assessment and payment of rent (including arrears of rent) as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."
6.1 It is manifest from the bare reading of the said Section that a person in unauthorized occupation is entitled to have the settlement of land in his favour subject to the assessment and payment of rent provided he is found to have in actual continuous W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 12 of 17 and uninterrupted possession of more than thirty years from the date of the institution of the proceeding under Sections 4, 6, 7 or 8 of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8-A of the Act makes it imperative on the Tahasildar to refer the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was further mandated to take a decision for settlement of the land after affording an opportunity of hearing given to the respective department of the State Government, other than the Revenue Department. Such protected umbrella is brought in the said Act, which was primarily aimed to prevent the unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the Government and, therefore, can be safely regarded as the beneficial piece of legislation.
6.2 The sequel of events narrated hereinbefore is corroborative of the fact that the appellant at a relevant point of time was in occupation and, therefore, in the proceeding so initiated, the Appellate Authority arrived at the tentative finding that it is a referable case under Sub-section (1) of Section 8-A of the said Act. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, but the same was assailed by the Tahasildar by W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 13 of 17 approaching the Revisional Authority under Section 12 (2) of the said Act.
6.3 The cumulative effect of the assimilation of the facts leads to an inescapable conclusion that the land possessed by the appellant has not been settled as yet in his favour and, therefore, he cannot be said to have an unfettered and/or inchoate title thereof. The order of the Appellate Authority, which was quashed by the Revisional Authority is suggestive of the fact that the matter concerning the land in question is competent enough to be referred under Sub-section (1) of Section 8-A before the Sub-Divisional Officer and not beyond it. Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of Section 8-A of the Act are relatable to a procedure to be adopted by the said Sub-Divisional Officer and power can also be traced therefrom in relation to the settlement of the said land upon assessment of the rent and the payment thereof by the occupant. The Revisional Authority appears to have proceeded on the premise that the entry in the Record of Right does not create any right, title and interest in respect of a property. It is no longer res integra that the entry in the Record of Right is not a document of title and, therefore, can neither create nor extinguish title of a W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 14 of 17 person. It has a presumptive value of possession; as such entry in the Record of Right makes the person liable to pay the land revenue in respect thereof. There is vast distinction between a right and interest in respect of a property and the title having conferred on such person.
6.4 Be that as it may, the single Bench has quashed and set aside the order of the Revisional Authority solely on the ground that the Tahasildar is not competent to approach the Revisional Court under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. In the case of Gulam Sarwar v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2011 (II) OLR 903, this Court held that Section 12 (2) of the Act does not contemplate that the revisional application is maintainable at the behest of the authority of the Revenue Department and, therefore, such revisional application is incompetent in the following:
"10. Section 12(2) of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Collector to revise the decision/order passed by the Sub-Collector under Section 7 or 8-A of the Act. But the provision does not contemplate anything to show that the revision is maintainable at the best of the authority of Revenue Department. This is only an order passed by the Sub-Collector and the same can be revised by the Collector. That apart, the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act vests power with the R.D.C. for initiation of suo motu revision of any order passed under the Act. Hence, initiation of the proceeding at the W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 15 of 17 behest of Revenue Officer, as we have said, is without jurisdiction. So by no stretch of imagination the Revenue Department cannot be said to be an aggrieved party to file a revision against the order passed by another Revenue Officer, i.e., Sub-Collector. So in our considered opinion, filing of an application in the instant case under Section 12 (2) of the Act before the Collector by the Revenue Officer is de hors the statutory provision and without any authority of law and, therefore, the same is not maintainable."
7. In view of the law enunciated in the above report, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the decision of the single Bench in quashing the order passed by the Revisional Authority on the application filed by the Tahasildar under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. As indicated above, so long the land in question is settled by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sub-section (3) of Section 8- A of the said Act, the question of determining the compensation for such deprivation has not accrued to the appellant and, therefore, the grievance raised in the instant appeal that the single Bench ought to have determined the compensation is not tenable.
8. Upon setting aside the order of the Revisional Authority, the order of the Appellate Authority by which the direction was made to refer the matter under Section 8-A of the said Act stood revived. The competent authority is directed to implement the said W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 16 of 17 order and the Sub-Divisional Officer is also directed to take a conscious decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 8-A of the said Act after following the mandate provided under Sub-section (2) thereof within four months from the date of the communication of this order.
9. The appeal is thus disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Arun Mishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Oct-2025 16:09:14 W.A. No. 756 of 2025 Page 17 of 17