The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 W.P.(C) No.22706 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). Dharama Sangha &. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha & Ors. &. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: -versus- For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Amitav Das, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Adv. Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, Adv. (for O.P.5) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-18.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has made a prayer to quash the notice dated 21.09.2017 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/ Secretary, Rourkela Development Authority, Rourkela directing removal of the mandir over plot No.399(P), Khata No.9, Mouza-RTC. The Petitioner further seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.3/ Collector, Sundargarh to take a decision with regard to sanction of Lease/ NOC in view of the circular dated 24.04.2015 issued by the Revenue & Disaster management Department Government of Odisha. Page 1 of 11 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015, issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, categorically provides that upon receipt of the requisite verification report from the district police authorities, the Collector shall assume seisin of the matter and take further action regarding sanction or allotment of lease. In conformity with this directive, the Petitioner9s association submitted a detailed representation before the Collector, Sundargarh on 26.05.2015, seeking early disposal of its application for lease of the subject land, not merely for regularization of possession but to advance its long-standing socio- cultural and public welfare objectives. He emphasized on the following points: (i) It was contended that the show-cause notice dated 21.09.2017 issued under Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 by the Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela, acting ex officio as Secretary of the Rourkela Development Authority (RDA), is ultra vires, arbitrary, and vitiated by non-application of mind. The Land Allotment Committee had already, by its resolution dated 20.09.2014, resolved to consider the Petitioner9s case for allotment subject to fulfilment of certain preconditions, which were duly complied with. In view of the subsequent Government Resolution of 24.04.2015, the matter fell exclusively Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 within the jurisdiction of the Collector, Sundargarh for further action upon receipt of the police verification report. (ii) The initiation of a parallel proceeding by the RDA amounts to a colourable exercise of power and administrative impropriety, as it interferes with a matter sub judice before the competent revenue authority. The impugned notice constitutes administrative overreach and violates the principle of institutional discipline between statutory and executive authorities. Such an act, being calculated to frustrate the administrative process pending before the Collector, is tainted by malice in law and contrary to the policy objective underlying the 2015 Resolution. (iii) It was further urged that Encroachment Case No.10 of 2007 had already been initiated by the Tahasildar, Rourkela, under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, in respect of the same land. The Petitioner, having paid rent and penalty assessed thereunder, continues to be recognized as a person in lawful possession pending final regularization. The initiation of another proceeding under the ODA Act, 1982 during the pendency of the encroachment and lease proceedings is jurisdictionally untenable, amounting to double jeopardy in administrative process. (iv) It was submitted that the OPLE Act and ODA Act operate in distinct statutory spheres4the former governing regularization of occupation over Government land, and the latter addressing unauthorized construction in notified development areas. Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 20:11:56 Invocation of the ODA machinery, while the matter was under active consideration within the revenue hierarchy, is thus ultra vires legislative intent and contrary to the doctrine of harmonious construction. (v) The impugned notice, issued without jurisdiction and contrary to pending proceedings, is procedurally defective and constitutionally infirm, offending the guarantees of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Citing S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India1 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2it was urged that the administrative power must be exercised on relevant considerations and in consonance with the rule of law. Accordingly, the Petitioner prayed that the impugned notice under Section 91 of the ODA Act, 1982 be quashed and that the pending lease application be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and the spirit of administrative justice. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned
Legal Reasoning
action of the Rourkela Development Authority is ex facie ultra vires, manifestly arbitrary, and repugnant to the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2015, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Collector to proceed with sanction or allotment of lease upon completion of police