Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 1460 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Prafulla Kumar Nayak &. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. &. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Anjan Ku. Biswal, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-22.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the impugned eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Tahasildar, Bonth, and to restrain the authorities from evicting him from his lawfully purchased and mutated property pending adjudication of the case. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The dispute pertains to land situated under Khata No. 919, Plot No. 1626/3080 of Mouza Bonth, District Bhadrak, measuring Ac. 0.01 dec., Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 which the petitioner claims to have purchased through a registered Sale Deed No. 00610 dated 25.10.2011 from vendors Gouranga Sahu, Subal Sahu, and Teru Sahu. The petitioner asserts that he has been in peaceful possession of the said land since 2011 and has constructed a double- storied residential building thereon. (ii) After the purchase, the petitioner claims to have mutated the land in his favour and converted its kisam from <Bagayat-III= to <Homestead= under Section 8(A) of the Odisha Land Reforms Act in OLR Misc. Case No. 134/2015. He has also been paying rent for the said land, which was accepted by the revenue authorities. (iii) The Tahasildar, Bonth, issued a notice dated 08.01.2021 directing the petitioner to vacate the said land within three days, alleging unauthorized occupation of abated Government land measuring Ac. 0.01 dec., which stands recorded in the name of the Purta Bibhaga under Khata No. 919, Plot No. 1626/3080, Kisam <Rasta.= (iv) The petitioner contends that the notice is arbitrary and illegal, having been issued without consideration of his Sale Deed, mutation records, and long-standing possession, while the Tahasildar maintains that the notice was issued in respect of land already acquired by the Government for construction of the Bhadrak3Anandapur State Highway (S.H. 53) in Land Abatement Case No. 35/2009. (v) According to the Tahasildar, compensation for the acquired land was paid to the recorded tenants, including the petitioner9s vendors, in 2009, and due to multiple abatement cases under the same project, there was a delay in updating the Record of Rights (ROR). During that period, the sale to the petitioner allegedly took place. Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (vi) The Tahasildar further asserts that both the petitioner and his vendor were neighbours and aware of the acquisition proceedings, and that public announcements were made asking occupants to vacate the acquired land. It is alleged that the petitioner not only purchased Ac. 0.01 dec. but also encroached upon an adjoining Ac. 0.01 dec. of Government land belonging to the Purta Bibhaga. (vii) The petitioner denies any knowledge of acquisition and contends that no such fact was reflected in the ROR or communicated by any authority at the time of purchase, conversion, or mutation. He maintains that he has been in lawful possession and that his eviction without due process would violate his constitutional rights. (viii) After completion of the acquisition proceedings and subsequent correction of records, the disputed portion of land came to be recorded in the name of the Purta Bibhaga as Khata No. 919, Plot No. 1626/3080. The authorities claim the eviction notice was issued in public interest to remove unauthorized occupation. (ix) The petitioner, disputing the legality of the notice and asserting his lawful ownership and possession, has approached this Hon9ble Court seeking quashing of the eviction notice and protection from dispossession, while the Tahasildar defends the action as lawful and necessary for implementation of the State Highway project. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (i) The petitioner contends that the eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Tahasildar, Bonth, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, having been issued without considering his title, possession, mutation records, and payment of rent. (ii) It is urged that the Tahasildar has failed to consider the registered Sale Deed (Annexure-1), ROR entry, and rent receipts (Annexure-2), all of which establish lawful ownership and possession of the petitioner over the land in question. (iii) The plea of the Opposite Party that a portion of the land had been acquired under LA Case No. 35/2009 is baseless and unsustainable. The petitioner argues that if such acquisition existed, the authorities were bound to reflect it in the ROR and restrict sale or conversion at the relevant time. Their failure amounts to official negligence. (iv) The petitioner asserts that the Opposite Parties, being custodians of land records, cannot now claim that acquisition proceedings were pending or completed after having allowed the petitioner9s mutation and conversion and accepted rent for over a decade. (v) The petitioner further contends that the plea of the Opposite Parties regarding <delay in correction of ROR due to numerous abatement proceedings= cannot justify depriving a bona fide purchaser of his property rights. A delay of nearly twelve years in updating land records cannot override settled possession and ownership. (vi) The counter affidavit9s claim that the land has been recorded in the name of <Purta Bibhaga= is vague and unsupported by documentary proof. No date or copy of correction entry or notice of hearing has been provided, showing mala fide intent and suppression of material facts. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (vii) The petitioner submits that the eviction notice, being issued without notice, inquiry, or consideration of relevant documents, violates the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A read with Article 21. (viii) The petitioner therefore prays for quashing of the impugned eviction notice (Annexure-3) and for protection from any coercive action pending adjudication of the writ petition, as the same is essential to prevent irreparable injury and uphold the rule of law. 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: The Opposite Party No. 3 contends that the petitioner9s writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserves dismissal, as the petitioner has suppressed material facts and approached the Court without clean hands. (ii) It is asserted that the land under dispute is part of an acquisition made long before the petitioner9s purchase, and once compensation was awarded in Land Abatement Case No. 35/2009, the title stood vested with the Government. Any subsequent sale by Gouranga Sahu in 2011 was void and conferred no right, title, or interest upon the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner, despite being aware of the acquisition and subsequent correction of records, unlawfully occupied and constructed over a Government plot recorded in the name of Purta Bibhaga. Such encroachment, according to the Tahasildar, constitutes unauthorized occupation liable to removal under law. Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (iv) The plea of delay in ROR correction is explained as arising out of numerous simultaneous abatement proceedings for the S.H. 53 project. The Opposite Party maintains that this administrative delay does not alter the legal status of the land, which already vested in the State upon acquisition. (v)
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that the notice issued on 08.01.2021 was lawful, proper, and in the interest of the public, as the encroached portion is part of a public road (Kisam 3 Rasta). The authorities acted within their jurisdiction and with due regard to administrative necessity. (vi) The assertion that the petitioner was unaware of acquisition proceedings is denied. The Opposite Party states that repeated public announcements were made and that both the petitioner and his vendor were fully conscious of the land being acquired yet chose to proceed with the illegal transaction and construction. (vii) The Opposite Party finally submits that since the petitioner9s possession is unauthorized and contrary to statutory records, no fundamental or legal right is infringed. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs, upholding the impugned notice of eviction issued IV. 5. 6. in the larger public interest. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The crucial question is whether the petitioner9s 2011 sale deed conveyed any title after the land had already been acquired by the State and compensation paid to the vendors in 2009. Under the Land Acquisition Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 Act, once compensation is awarded and paid, the acquired land vests in the State, and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition. 7. In fact, in this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi1 held that a subsequent purchaser cannot raise this objection to the acquisition proceedings. The relevant excerpts are produced below: <As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC No. 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.= 8. In the present case, the petitioner bought the plot long after acquisition was completed, so legally he stands in the shoes of a subsequent purchaser. His remedy, if any, is a claim to a portion of the compensation (under Section 48 of the Act), not retention of possession or annulment of the acquisition. 9. Constitutional guarantees under Article 300A only permit deprivation of property by lawful acquisition with compensation. This principle has been underscored by a plethora of judicial precedents including the Supreme Court9s judgment in the case of Sh. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat2 wherein it held as under: <Generally speaking preservation of public health or prevention of damage to life and property are considered to be public purposes. Yet deprivation of property for any such purpose would not amount to acquisition or possession taken under Article 300A. It would be by exercise of the Police power of the State. In other words, Art. 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no 1 O.J.C. No. 43 of 1977 2 AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 142 Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation. Acquisition of mines, minerals and quarries is deprivation under Art 300A.= 10. Here the land in question was acquired for public purpose (State Highway) through a valid notification, and adequate compensation was paid in 2009. The constitutional requirements were thus satisfied. The petitioner9s argument that the acquisition was not reflected in the Record of Rights at the time of his purchase does not negate the legal effect of the acquisition. Once the land was lawfully acquired and compensation paid, title passed to the State, irrespective of any delay or omission in updating the revenue records. 11. Moreover, mutation entries and rent receipts do not create title independent of the underlying transfer. Mutation proceedings serve only to fix the person liable to pay land revenue and other dues, not to adjudicate ownership. A mutation based on a registered sale deed can only be set aside if the sale deed itself is set aside in a civil proceeding. In other words, the correctness of the sale (and hence the mutation) must be tested in a civil court, not in a writ petition. The fact that the petitioner obtained mutation and paid rent to the revenue authorities is of no avail to sustain his possession against the State9s title. Those entries merely recognize who was in possession for tax purposes; they do not confer an indefeasible title when the land itself was already acquired. 12. Finally, the eviction notice in question was issued under statutory authority to remove unauthorized occupation of State land. In fact, this Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 Court in the case of Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha3 had held that the eviction notices directed at unlawful occupants were held to be legal, valid and sustainable in the eye of law. The relevant excerpts are produced below: <The land in dispute is an Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath, recorded in the name of the deity, and the Petitioners are unauthorised occupants thereon. The eviction notice dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, and the rejection order dated 21.02.2024 issued by the Chief Administrator (Revenue), Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, are legal, valid and sustainable in the eye of law.= 13. By parity of reasoning, the Tahasildar9s notice cannot be impugned, since the land is now recorded in the name of the Purta Bibhaga (for highway use) and the petitioner9s occupation is therefore unauthorized. There is no procedural infirmity that vitiates the notice: it was issued pursuant to the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and judicial directions to clear acquired land. The petitioner9s contention of denial of natural justice does not override the rule that, after acquisition, only compensation remedies remain available. V. CONCLUSION: 14. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition fails on merits and is dismissed. No interference can be granted with the eviction notice dated 08.01.2021. The petitioner is at liberty to seek any appropriate remedy for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The order of eviction shall remain in force and the petitioner shall vacate the land in accordance with law. 3 W.P.(C) No.15095 of 2024 Page 9 of 10 15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st Oct., 2025/- Page 10 of 10