Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11164 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Abasika Sangha, Sector-13, CDA, Cuttack …. 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. Nirod Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-25.09.2025 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 restrain the Cuttack Development Authority from demolishing the community hall in Sector-13, Cuttack, to regularize its construction, and to ensure that no coercive action is taken without due notice and hearing. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (i) The petitioner, Abasika Sangha, Sector-13, is a registered residents’ welfare society that has filed a writ petition challenging the announcement made by the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) on 04.04.2023 for demolition of a community hall located in Sector-13, Abhinaba Bidanasi, Cuttack. (ii) Sector-13 was developed as a residential project around the year 2000 under the CDA. Plot allotments were issued in phases between 2004 and 2007, but physical possession to the allottees was delayed until approximately 2018. (iii) The residents of the area formed Abasika Sangha, Sector-13 in 2015 to collectively address delays, represent grievances before authorities, and coordinate with CDA for infrastructure and civic amenities. The society has since obtained registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. (iv) According to the petitioner, CDA officials had identified around Ac. 0.02 dec. of land in the south-east corner of Hal Plot No. 51, Khata No. 330 (CDA Plot No. 13-3-K/CC/937P/U) for construction of a community hall, which was earmarked for community use. However, no formal allotment or lease was issued by CDA. (v) The petitioner’s community house was constructed on the above- mentioned land with residents’ contributions and has been used for social and cultural gatherings. Official enquiry reports by the Tahasildar, Baranga and Revenue Inspector between 2022 and 2023 confirmed that the land is recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi (Government land not objectionable for settlement) and that the society is functioning there. Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (vi) The society obtained permanent electricity connection, conducts annual public functions, and claims uninterrupted possession and community use of the premises since construction. (vii) The CDA Enforcement Squad made a public announcement in April 2023 declaring the structure illegal and indicating that demolition would be carried out. The petitioner challenges this action as being without notice or hearing. (viii) In the counter affidavit, the CDA and State authorities state that the land in question is undisputedly Government property and that the petitioner has no ownership, leasehold, or legal right to construct or occupy the site. (ix) CDA asserts that the land forms part of a planned development zone intended for a Kalyan Mandap and parking facilities to serve the broader public, and that an alternative site has been identified for a community centre for Sector-13 residents. (x) The opposite parties characterize the petitioner’s occupation as unauthorized and contrary to developmental objectives, maintaining that protecting or regularizing such occupation would impede CDA’s planned public works and contravene the law. 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 action of CDA is arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, and violative of principles of natural justice, since no notice or hearing preceded the demolition announcement. Even a trespasser cannot be evicted without following due process of law; hence a registered Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 community society in settled possession cannot be dispossessed summarily. (ii) The community house was built on land earmarked in the Zonal Development Plan for community use and recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi; therefore, it does not violate the Odisha Development Authorities Act (ODA) or Municipal laws. The construction was for the public benefit and not for private gain. (iii) The society’s applications dated 12.03.2021 and 16.08.2021 under Section 15 of the ODA Act sought development permission for the community hall. Since CDA failed to take any decision within the statutory time limit, the permission must be deemed to have been granted by operation of law. Hence, the construction cannot be treated as illegal. (iv) The society is in juridical possession over the land and building, functioning for more than five years, maintaining electricity connection, and conducting community programs with government and police permissions: facts acknowledged by official enquiry reports. (v) The action of the CDA violates Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 21 of the Constitution, depriving citizens of their collective right to association, shelter, and community development without lawful procedure. (vi) Even assuming procedural irregularity in construction, the authorities have power to regularize the structure in the larger public interest rather than demolish a public utility facility built through community effort. (vii) Since the community hall serves a crucial socio-cultural function for Sector-13 residents, its demolition would cause irreparable injury to hundreds of households who depend on it for meetings, pujas, and welfare activities, while offering no corresponding public benefit. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (viii) The action of withholding pension deposits has caused grave financial hardship, depriving the petitioner of means for subsistence and his daughter’s marriage expenses, amounting to a violation of the right to dignity under Article 21. 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 writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no legally enforceable right over the Government land. The petitioner’s admission that title vests with the State extinguishes any claim to relief under Article 226. Without ownership, lease, or possession sanctioned by law, no fundamental or statutory right is violated. (ii) The dispute raised involves questions of title and possession which are issues of fact requiring detailed examination of records and evidence. Such questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, which are confined to questions of legality and procedure. Hence, the proper remedy lies before a competent civil forum, not the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. (iii) The petitioner’s construction runs contrary to the developmental objectives of the Cuttack Development Authority, which has planned public amenities including a Kalyan Mandap and parking space on the same land. Granting relief to the petitioner would obstruct these public projects and undermine larger community interests. (iv) CDA emphasizes that the alternate site provided for a community centre adequately accommodates the petitioner’s purpose and is located more Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 conveniently for the residents. Hence, the petitioner’s insistence on retaining the existing structure lacks justification. (v) The petitioner is described as a rank trespasser on public land, whose conduct amounts to illegal encroachment. The CDA relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India1, wherein the Court held that rewarding encroachers on public land undermines rule of law and equates to “rewarding a pickpocket.” By analogy, protecting the petitioner would legitimize land-grabbing and frustrate public administration.
Decision
(vi) Therefore, the CDA prays for dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of absence of legal right, existence of disputed questions of fact, obstruction to planned development, and encroachment on public property, contending that no relief can be granted in equity or law to the petitioner-society. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The petitioner-society admits that the disputed plot is Government land, with title vesting in the State. Its plea rests on protecting a community hall built thereon. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is invoked only for enforcement of legal or fundamental rights. As held by this Court in the case of Lal Baba Dargha (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha and Ors.2, the existence of structures for religious or public purposes cannot legitimise unauthorised occupation of government land unless 1 (2000) 2 SCC 679 2 W.P. (C) No. 14296 of 2016 Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 such occupation is regularised under law. Now amount of well- intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “With regard to the plea based on long-standing structures and assertions of public utility, it must be noted that no amount of well-intentioned justification can override the statutory the occupation of Government land. Unauthorised use of public premises, even if purported to serve a public purpose, cannot be legitimised unless regularised in accordance with law.” restrictions governing 7. Likewise, the petitioner here has no title, lease or statutory sanction for the hall. Mere identification of land for community purposes in a zonal plan does not confer any proprietary or possessory right upon private individuals or associations. The petitioner-society’s continued occupation, even if motivated by welfare considerations, therefore remains unauthorized in the eye of law. 8. Though petitioners cite Sections 15-16 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act (1982), this cannot cure the fundamental absence of legal right. Under Section 15 no development is permitted without the Authority’s approval, and Section 16 requires an application for permission before undertaking any building work. If the Authority fails to decide within the prescribed time, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant. 9. Assuming arguendo that the society’s applications dated 12.03.2021 and 16.08.2021 triggered this deemed-grant rule, it still remains that no lease or allotment was executed. In effect, the petitioner held only a bare licence to construct. Under our law even a licence-holder or squatters’ positional right ends once lawfully evicted by due process. The CDA’s Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 plan foresees a Kalyan Mandap and parking on this land, which serves a wider public need, and an alternate site has been offered for the community. Granting permanent occupancy here would thwart the approved development plan. 10. Nonetheless, mere lack of title does not free the State from complying with due process. It is now well‐settled that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without notice and an opportunity to be heard. This Court in the case of Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Orissa3 had faulted the officials for undue haste and lack of any show-cause notice before demolition. This Court invoked the Supreme Court’s Demolition of Structures guidelines (2025), and held that forcible dispossession without due process violated Article 300-A of the Constitution. It stressed that executive action must be fair, transparent and within legal bounds, not bulldozer justice. The relevant excerpts of the judgment are produced below: “What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” 11. Applying these principles, this Court finds that the petitioner’s occupancy is unauthorised but the CDA’s demolition notice was issued 3 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2593. Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 without any prior hearing. The society’s allegations and official reports show the hall was used continuously for over five years with an electricity connection and public functions. Under these circumstances, the CDA should first have issued a formal eviction notice or show‐cause, affording the society a hearing and time to respond. The mandatory procedures under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and Public Premises Eviction Act must be followed. 12. That said, the petitioner has not established any legal right to occupy the land itself. Its only “right” is the permission, if any, to erect a building, not to hold the land permanently. Even occupations for social or religious purposes must yield to statutory mandates. The petitioners’ reliance on any deemed sanction under Section 16(8) cannot override the fact that they never obtained a lease or allotment under ODA or its rules. V. CONCLUSION: 13. In sum, the matter falls within facts and title, but it also raises the question whether CDA acted arbitrarily. This Court finds that the CDA’s intended demolition was premature and violative of natural justice. However, once proper procedure is followed, the petitioners cannot claim a vested right in government land. 14. The Writ Petition is dismissed on merits. The CDA (and other authorities) may proceed to remove the structure, but only by strictly following the law: they must issue appropriate notices of trespass or eviction, allow the petitioner a hearing, and consider any application for settlement or lease. Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 15. 16. In particular, if any permission under the ODA Act was deemed granted, the CDA shall clarify the conditions thereof, including payment of development fees, before ordering demolition. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st Oct, 2025 Page 10 of 10