Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32402 of 2011 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Umesh Ch. Sahoo …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party (s) : : Mr. Prasanna Ku. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the impugned eviction orders passed by the Tahasildar, Ghatagaon, Sub-Collector, Keonjhar and ADM, Keonjhar and to direct settlement of the disputed land in his favour on the basis of long, continuous possession since 1966. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner challenges three orders of eviction: Tahasildar, Ghatagaon (28.03.2007) in Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07, Sub- Collector, Keonjhar (16.06.2008) in Encroachment Appeal No.01/2007, Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 and Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar (06.03.2009) in Encroachment Revision No.04/2008, all confirmed the eviction and penalties. (ii) The disputed land is Plot No.534 under Khata No.116 (later noted as Khata No.166) of Mouza Dhenkikote, measuring Ac.1.22 dec., recorded in the ROR as “jungle kisam” under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata, previously held by one Karuna Sethi and later occupied by the petitioner’s father, Mohan Ch. Sahoo, since 1966. (iii) The petitioner’s father constructed a shed for residence, cultivated the land, and his possession was reflected in earlier revenue records; reports of the Tahasildar in 2007 confirmed long possession since 1966. (iv) Earlier encroachment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner’s father: Case No.179/1992-93 and Case No.255/2001-02, where he admitted possession and sought settlement; Revenue Inspector reports recorded the land as “jungle kisam,” noted income above the prescribed limit, and held him not landless; eviction notices were issued, penalties imposed, and lands recorded as free from encroachment. (v) In 2006-07, the petitioner himself was proceeded against in Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07 for raising a boundary wall on Plot No.534; notice under Section 7 OPLE Act was issued on 24.02.2007 and show cause reply was filed on 09.03.2007 pleading landless status and long possession. (vi) The Tahasildar ordered eviction on 28.03.2007, holding that the petitioner remained absent and villagers protested the encroachment. Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 (vii) The Sub-Collector, in Appeal No.01/2007, dismissed the plea on 16.06.2008, finding that the land was “jungle kisam” under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata and not leasable in nature. (viii) The Additional District Magistrate, in Revision No.04/2008, dismissed the case on 06.03.2009, holding that possession was not continuous, earlier encroachment cases existed, the petitioner was not landless, income exceeded the prescribed limit, and jungle kisam land was not fit for settlement. (ix) The opposite parties relied upon Revenue Inspector reports, RoR extracts showing no possession recorded in the petitioner’s father’s name, and documents reflecting income levels and property holdings including an aluminium shop at Anandapur and agricultural land at Mugupur. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The impugned orders are contrary to law as the authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioner and his family have been in continuous possession since 1966, which creates entitlement for settlement. (ii) The finding that the petitioner is not a landless person and has income of ₹30,000 per annum is based on no material; no particulars of land ownership or income sources were produced, rendering the conclusion arbitrary. (iii) The Sub-Collector’s observation that the land is Abad Jogya Anabadi should have prevailed; the ADM’s reliance on the “jungle kisam” entry in ROR reflects non-application of judicial mind and inconsistency. Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 (iv) Earlier encroachment proceedings against the father were left unresolved and presumed dropped; hence, initiation of a fresh proceeding against the petitioner is barred by res judicata and amounts to double jeopardy under the Act. (v) The principle of continuous possession for over 30 years, coupled with the petitioner’s claim of being landless, mandates settlement rather than eviction, and the contrary finding is unsustainable. (vi) The orders of Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, and ADM are vitiated by procedural irregularity, non-consideration of reports, and violation of natural justice, since the petitioner was not heard before final disposal on 28.03.2007. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Decision
The writ petition is not maintainable in law and deserves dismissal at the threshold, as the petitioner seeks to reopen settled encroachment disputes already adjudicated up to the revisional stage. (ii) The petitioner and his father were never recorded owners or continuous lawful possessors; their possession was illegal encroachment, repeatedly established through multiple encroachment proceedings (1992, 2001, 2006). (iii) The plea of being landless is false, as both petitioner and father had stable income above prescribed limits, along with homestead and agricultural land at Mugupur; hence they were ineligible for settlement under OPLE rules. Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 (iv) The disputed land being classified as jungle kisam under AJA Khata is highly objectionable for settlement; such land cannot be regularized in favour of encroachers irrespective of duration of possession. (v) Authorities at all levels (Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, ADM) rightly rejected the claim after due enquiry, following OPLE procedure under Sections 6–9, and orders are consistent and legally valid. (vi) The writ petition contains false claims of possession being recorded in RoR, suppresses past encroachment proceedings, and misrepresents income and landholding status; hence, it lacks merit and should be dismissed. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT: 5. (i) The orders of the Tahasildar and the Sub-Collector reveal the following key findings: The Tahasildar, Ghatagaon initiated Encroachment Case No.1227/2006- 07 on requisition from the R.I., Dhenkikote, issuing notice under Section 7 OPLE Act on 14.02.2007 prohibiting construction and directing the petitioner to reply to the show cause regarding encroachment of an area measuring Ac.1.22 under Plot No.534, Khata No.166, Mouza Dhenkikote. (ii) The petitioner filed reply to the show cause on 09.03.2007 claiming inherited possession and disputing the kisam entry as “jungle,” but no subsequent notice of hearing was served; the case was taken up on 28.03.2007 in petitioner’s absence, resulting in eviction order with imposition of back rent and penalty, directing vacation within 30 days. Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 (iii) The Sub-Collector, Keonjhar, in Encroachment Appeal No.01/2007, upheld the Tahasildar’s eviction order dated 28.03.2007 and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 16.06.2008, maintaining the finding that the land was objectionable for settlement. (iv) Both Tahasildar and Sub-Collector held that the land fell under Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata but recorded as jungle kisam, which was treated as objectionable in nature and not fit for settlement in favour of the petitioner. (v) The lower courts concluded that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation, and the plea of inherited possession and long-standing occupation was insufficient to prevent eviction under the OPLE V. 6. 7. framework JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. It is a settled position of law that a person in unauthorized occupation of Government land cannot claim any legal right to continue on such land or seek regularization as a matter of course. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder and Anr v. State of Haryana1 has emphatically held as follows: “It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been 1 SLP (Civil) No. 1829/2021. Page 6 of 9 illegal occupation of the fulfilled, such persons Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization.” in 8. In other words, an encroacher’s only entitlement (if any) is derived from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 the applicable government policy or statute, and even that is contingent on full compliance with the prescribed conditions. Long duration of occupation by itself does not confer any legal sanction. Courts cannot direct that an encroachment be regularized on grounds of hardship or length of possession when the statutory conditions are unmet. On the contrary, the judicial precedents have consistently directed all State authorities to remove encroachments on public lands, emphasizing that such blatant illegalities must not be condoned even if encroachers have built houses or occupied the land for many years. The public character of the land must be preserved, and any regularization, if at all permissible, is an exception strictly governed by law. 9. In the present case, the petitioner’s principal claim is that his family’s continuous occupation of the land since 1966, coupled with an asserted status as “landless,” entitles him to settlement of the land instead of eviction. This contention is misconceived in law and on facts. Mere long possession, even over 30 years, does not create a vested right to demand settlement of Government land. The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act) and the Rules made thereunder do contemplate the possibility of settling certain encroachments, but only if specific criteria are satisfied. First, the land itself must be of a type that is non-objectionable and eligible for lease under the applicable policy. Here, the disputed Plot No.534 is recorded as “Abad Jogya Anabadi, Jungle kisam.” This classification indicates it is government wasteland Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 with forest growth (jungle). Such land is treated as environmentally sensitive and not ordinarily available for settlement in favor of encroachers. 10. The authorities have consistently considered “jungle” land as objectionable for regularization, which is evident from the Revenue Inspector’s reports and the concurrent findings of the Tahasildar, Sub- Collector, and Additional District Magistrate. The Court finds no error in that assessment. Forest-like government lands enjoy special protection and cannot be freely divested; any settlement would require strict adherence to Forest conservation norms and State policies, which are absent in this case. Thus, the nature of the land itself disentitles the petitioner. 11. It is settled that public lands, particularly those with environmental sensitivity, cannot be permitted to remain under encroachment on sympathetic grounds. The judicial precedents have repeatedly underscored that encroachers acquire no equity against the State and that preservation of public property must take precedence over private claims. 12. To this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab and Ors.2 directed all State authorities to remove encroachments on public lands, emphasizing that such blatant illegalities must not be condoned, even if encroachers have built houses or occupied the land for many years. The relevant excerpt is produced below: 2 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1123. Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 “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.” 13. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable right to seek settlement of the disputed land. The classification of the land as jungle kisam under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata makes it ineligible for regularization, irrespective of the length of possession claimed. The plea of being “landless” is unsupported by credible material, while the concurrent findings of the Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, and Additional District Magistrate reflect due consideration of the statutory scheme under the OPLE Act. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity or illegality in the orders impugned. 14. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/ (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Page 9 of 9