High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH CK GH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6877 of 2020 Sadasiba Dora ..…... Mr. Karunak on behalf of Mr. Tukuna Kumar Petitioner(s) nakar Dash, Adv. ar Mishra, Adv. -Versus- Collector, Nabara rangpur & Anr. ……. Opposite Mr. Debasish ite Party(s) sish Nayak, AGA M: CORAM DR. JUST USTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 02.12.2025 Order No. 14. 1. This matter is t is taken up through hybrid arrangemen ent. 2. Heard learned ed counsel for the parties. 3. The present wr t writ petition calls for scrutiny of the le e legality of the eviction notice tice dated 10.12.2019 issued by the the Tahasildar, Nandahandi i in E.C. Case No.405 of 2019. Th The challenge proceeds on th n the foundational assertion that the he subject land bearing Khata ata No.789, Plot No.918 measuring g Ac.0.07 dec. which stands c ds covered by a declaratory decree of of a competent civil court in T n T.S. No.13/96, wherein the right, title, itle, and interest of the Petitione ioner’s father were judicially recognized ized as early as on 08.03.2003. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Dec-2025 19:13:38 Page 1 of 5 2 4. This Court is th is therefore required to examine the inte nterrelationship between a sub subsisting civil court decree and the ad administrative machinery’s ju jurisdiction under the Orissa Prevent ention of Land Encroachment ent Act (OPLE Act), and whether th the impugned eviction notice tice constitutes a permissible exercise ise of statutory power or an im n impermissible encroachment on judic udicially settled rights. 5. A declaratory d ry decree of title issued by a civil court o rt of competent jurisdiction oc occupies a position of supremacy cy within the constitutional f al framework of dispute resolution. Civ Civil courts are vested with ple plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of of the Code of Civil Procedur dure to adjudicate disputes relating ng to property rights unless ex s expressly or impliedly excluded. The he decree dated 08.03.2003 in T n T.S. No.13/96 was rendered upon prop roper service of notice, and th the State authorities chose not to to contest the proceeding. 6. The State or its r its functionaries cannot disregard a d a decree merely because they w y were absent or negligent; the decree at e attains finality unless challeng lenged before the appellate forum. The The doctrine of res judicata (Se (Section 11 CPC) is attracted not only in y in subsequent civil proceedi edings but, in principle, binds ad administrative authorities as w as well, preventing them from assuming ing jurisdiction contrary to mat matters that have already been adjudicat icated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Dec-2025 19:13:38 Page 2 of 5 3 7. The impugned ed eviction notice effectively seeks to un undermine the civil court’s de declaration of title by branding the Pet Petitioner as an “encroacher.” S r.” Such action amounts to a collateral a al attack on the civil court decr ecree which is constitutionally impermis missible. 8. The Supreme C e Court in State of Kerala v. M.K. K . Kunhikannan1 Nambiar auth uthoritatively held that administrative tive authorities cannot nullify, lify, bypass, or act in derogation of a of a civil court decree through ugh executive measures. The ratio of of the decision rests on two fu fundamental propositions: a. Judicial d al determinations cannot be undone b e by executive fiat, for t or that would violate the doctrine of s of separation of powers is is one of the basic features of the Cons onstitution. b. The fact act that the decree is ex parte does not not diminish its binding f g force. Jurisprudence has consistently tly held that an ex parte rte decree is a decree nonetheless, enfo enforceable and operative tive unless set aside in accordance with ith law (Order IX Rules 1 les 13 and 9 CPC; appeals under Section ion 96(2) CPC). 9. If the State is is aggrieved by a judicial decision, its its remedy lies exclusively in in invoking judicial mechanisms of co correction, not by unilateral al administrative action. The Tahasild sildar, being a statutory auth uthority under the OPLE Act, cannot not arrogate to himself the ju jurisdiction to question or overrid ride a judicial 1 1996 (I) SCC 435 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Dec-2025 19:13:38 Page 3 of 5 4 pronouncemen ent. Any such attempt would amount unt to an excess of jurisdiction a on and abuse of statutory power. 10. The OPLE Act ct is designed to remove unauthorized zed encroachers from Governm nment land. Its premise is premised o d on absence of lawful title or or authority. Where a civil court rt has already declared title in le in favour of a party, the essential jurisd risdictional fact of “encroachme hment” ceases to exist. 11. Once the civil vil court recognizes the Petitioner’s fath father as having valid rights ove over the land, the Tahasildar is divested ted of authority to treat the o e occupant as an encroacher. The ad administrative machinery ca cannot reopen questions of title. . Hence, the administrative ive authorities are estopped from adjud judicating upon or contradicting ting judicially recognized rights. 12. Issuance of t f the eviction notice therefore suff suffers from a jurisdictional d al defect, rendering the action void a d and non est. Under the con constitutional mandate of the Rule of of Law, State authorities are are duty-bound to comply with and g d give effect to judicial orders ers. The Tahasildar’s action in the p e present case reflects a dis disregard for judicial nd finality and introduces administrative ive arbitrariness into a domain where ju e judicial clarity already exists. 13. The State’s sub submission that time is required to verify erify whether an appeal was pre preferred does not salvage the position. ion. The burden Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Dec-2025 19:13:38 Page 4 of 5 5 lies on the Stat tate to demonstrate that the decree has has been stayed, modified, or a r annulled. In absence of any such s h showing, the decree continue inues to bind the State with full vigour. 14. Allowing the e e eviction notice to stand would effec ffectively confer upon the exec xecutive the power to negate judicia icial decrees, a proposition fu fundamentally inconsistent with cons onstitutionalism and the hierarc
Legal Reasoning
archy of legal norms. 15. In light of the the binding civil court decree dated 08 08.03.2003, the Tahasildar ha had no lawful authority to nitiate eviction initia proceedings ag s against the Petitioner. The impugned n d notice is ultra vires, amounts nts to a collateral attack on a subsis bsisting judicial determination, on, violates the doctrine of separation tion of powers, and contravene enes the rule of law. Accordingly, the ev e eviction notice dated 10.12.201 .2019 is unsustainable and liable to be set set side. 16. Accordingly, th
Decision
y, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Murmu ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrah Judge rahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Dec-2025 19:13:38 Page 5 of 5