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: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 Along with Batch of Writ Petitions (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). (W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014) Kabiraj Jena …. Petitioner(s) State of Orissa and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. D.K. Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-11.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 (W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 Along with W.P.(C) Nos.20746, 21504, 23453, 23454, 23455 and 23456 of 2014) Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters. Page 1 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 2. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has assailed order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No.4 of 2012 filed by the Opposite Party No.5/ VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla reversing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No.31 of 2012 and confirming the order of eviction dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.4/ Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No.7/4-21/2011 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: (i) The factual backdrop, in brief, is that the disputed land, recorded under Khata No. 387 comprising various plots, stands vested in the Irrigation Department of the Government. It is averred that the Petitioner and several similarly situated persons have been residing over the said land for more than six decades, having constructed their residential houses thereon. The genesis of their occupation traces back to the period of construction of the Hirakud Dam Project, when the forefathers of the present occupants migrated to Burla for engagement in the dam construction activities and, having settled thereafter, continued to occupy the said land on a long-standing and uninterrupted basis. (ii) It is further stated that, over the years, they have secured electricity connections to their respective houses, paid holding tax and rent to the Burla Notified Area Council (NAC), and have Page 2 of 21
Facts
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 also availed domestic water supply connections in due course of time, thereby evidencing possession recognized by public authorities. The Petitioners assert that they have no alternative site for residence, and their occupation, being rooted in historical and socio-economic necessity, merits sympathetic and lawful consideration. (iii) While the matter thus rested, a Public Interest Litigation came to be instituted before this Court by certain students of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, registered as W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, wherein a prayer was made seeking appropriate directions for removal of unauthorised encroachers and for prevention of further trespass over the lands appertaining to the said Medical College and Hospital campus. Upon consideration of the issues raised and the materials placed on record, this Court, by order dated 05.12.2011, was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition with the following direction: “The concerned authorities, including the Estate Officer of the property, need not await completion of the process of recording the land in the name of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. They are directed to initiate proceedings against the unauthorised occupants under the relevant provisions of law.” Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the administrative machinery was set in motion for initiation of proceedings against the alleged encroachers occupying Government land within and Page 3 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 around the precincts of the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital campus. (iv) Pursuant to the directions rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, the Opposite Party No. 4 – Tahasildar, Sambalpur, invoking his powers under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, initiated Urban Encroachment Proceeding No. 714-92/2011 against the present Petitioners. It is alleged that the said proceeding culminated, in undue haste and without the observance of the minimum procedural safeguards, in an order of eviction dated 06.01.2012, whereby the Petitioners were directed to vacate the land in question. The Petitioners contend that the said order was passed per incuriam, in a mechanical fashion, and in disregard of the long-standing de facto possession and civic regularisation of their occupation, thus rendering the proceeding tainted with arbitrariness and jurisdictional infirmity. (v) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction order, the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1394 of 2012, challenging the same inter alia on the grounds of ultra vires exercise of authority and violation of the audi alteram partem rule. This Court, while refraining from adjudicating on the merits, was pleased, vide order dated 06.03.2012, to dispose of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the Petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Act. Availing such liberty, the Petitioners preferred OPLE Appeal No. 31 of 2012 before the Page 4 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur, assailing the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional competence of the Tahasildar’s order dated 06.01.2012 (vi) The Appellate Authority, upon analogously hearing twenty- two appeals arising from identical eviction orders passed by the Tahasildar in relation to different occupants within the same geographical cluster, and upon an exhaustive scrutiny of the record and the legal provisions governing the field, delivered a reasoned adjudication dated 20.07.2012, wherein it was categorically held as follows: “In view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate encroachment cases pertaining to Burla town during the pendency of settlement operations. Hence, the orders dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned Tahasildar, Sambalpur in the respective Encroachment Cases are hereby set aside.” The Sub-Collector thus conclusively determined that the impugned eviction orders were nullities in law, having been rendered by an authority bereft of jurisdiction ratione materiae owing to the pendency of the settlement operation in the concerned urban unit. (vii) Notwithstanding the jurisdictional bar and absence of proprietary nexus, the Opposite Party No. 5 – V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, purporting to act as an interested institution, though admittedly neither the recorded owner nor the beneficiary of the land in dispute, preferred a revision before the Opposite Party No. 2 – Collector, Sambalpur, registered as Page 5 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 OPLE Revision Case No. 4 of 2012, seeking reversal of the well- reasoned appellate order dated 20.07.2012. (viii) The Revisional Authority – Collector, Sambalpur, vide order dated 26.09.2014, allowed the said revision and thereby set aside the appellate findings, without adverting to or analytically engaging with the jurisdictional observations recorded by the Sub-Collector. The Revisional Authority, instead of conducting an independent appraisal of the factual and legal issues, appears to have been solely guided by the general directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, which were of a facilitative and administrative character, rather than a mandate for indiscriminate eviction. Consequently, the revisional order, being non-speaking, perverse, and reflective of extraneous influence, stands impugned in the present proceeding as having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction, and in derogation of the settled principles governing quasi-judicial adjudication under the OPLE Act. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The admitted position, as emerging from the counter affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur, unequivocally establishes that the subject land forms part of the estate vested in the Irrigation Department, and not in the Revenue Department. Once such vesting is acknowledged, the Tahasildar, acting as a Page 6 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 revenue authority, stands denuded of jurisdiction ratione materiae to invoke the machinery of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 .The statutory precondition for the assumption of jurisdiction under the OPLE framework is that the land must fall within the administrative control of the Revenue Department, or be placed under its custody by a competent requisitioning authority. Absent such requisition from the Irrigation Department, the initiation of Urban Encroachment Case No. 714-92/2011 constitutes an act coram non judice — one rendered by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction. (ii) The principle of competence, which undergirds all administrative and quasi-judicial action, posits that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of legality. As consistently held in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan1, and reaffirmed in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2, an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, incapable of being sanctified by consent, acquiescence, or even appellate affirmation. Jurisdiction must be conferred de jure, not de facto; it cannot be usurped through administrative zeal. Hence, the eviction order dated 06.01.2012, being born of jurisdictional incompetence, is void ab initio and liable to be effaced ex debito justitiae. (iii) The material on record further discloses that the Petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have remained in open, continuous, and uncontested possession of the land for more