Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13391 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Sk. Farid …. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Adv. Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. G.K. Acharya, Sr. Adv. along with associates Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-14.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-19.08.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, by filing the present Writ Petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-
Facts
cum-Appellate Authority, Bhubaneswar, affirming the order dated 10.01.2024 passed in A.G. (Audit-1)/EC/Evic/2023-24 under the Public Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admin)-cum-Estate Officer. 2. The Petitioner has also sought a direction upon the Opposite Parties to settle the land in his favour in respect of Plot No. 249, Khata No. 76 of Mouza-Bhouma Nagar under Bhubaneswar Tahasil, District Khordha. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner has been carrying on a meat business for several years behind the Mosque in Bhouma Nagar Daily Market, near the CPWD Cement Godown, Unit-IV, Ward No. 36 under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.
Legal Reasoning
(ii) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3860 of 2023, which was disposed of on 09.02.2023 with a direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, to consider his case. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted the order along with a representation before the authority. However, no decision has been taken to date and the petitioner has not been relocated. (iii) Meanwhile, Opposite Party No. 8 initiated a case bearing A.G. (Audit– 1)/EC/Evic/2023-24 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 at the instance of Opposite Party No. 3. (iv) The petitioner appeared before Opposite Party No. 8 on 14.11.2023 and filed a petition seeking to keep the proceeding in abeyance on the ground that no decision had been taken pursuant to the order of this Court. Subsequently, upon enquiry in the office of the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar on 09.01.2024, the petitioner learnt that the proceeding Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54
Decision
had already been disposed of directing him to vacate the premises, and thereafter he received a copy of the order dated 10.01.2024. (v) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1431 of 2024 seeking quashing of the order dated 10.01.2024 on the ground that it had been passed by the Estate Officer without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. This Court, by order dated 29.01.2024, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in FAO No. 30 of 2024. (vi) The learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar, without adequately examining the merits of the Estate Officer’s order, confirmed the same vide order dated 19.03.2025 in FAO No. 30 of 2024. (vii) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2025 of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to the Opposite Parties to settle the land in his favour in respect of Plot No. 249, Khata No. 76 of Mouza-Bhouma Nagar under Bhubaneswar Tahasil, District Khordha. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that he has been carrying on a meat business for more than a decade behind the Mosque in Bhouma Nagar Daily Market, near the CPWD Cement Godown, Unit-IV, Ward No. 36 under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The business has been conducted II. 4. (i) Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 without obstruction to the public and caters to the needs of the local population. (ii) The Petitioner submitted that he has been regularly paying trade licence fees to the Corporation, has been provided electricity connection by the Energy Department, has been paying electricity charges from time to time, and has obtained a food licence valid till 01.08.2026. (iii) The Petitioner contended that although he has been in long and continuous possession of the site, the Opposite Parties constructed a market building with small shop rooms. He was assured allotment of a shop but was deprived of the same, as the rooms were allotted to outsiders. Consequently, he has been compelled to continue his business in the open. Despite repeated assurances of resettlement, no steps have been taken, leading him to submit a representation on 30.01.2023 seeking settlement of the land. (iv) The Petitioner submitted that he had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3860 of 2023, which was disposed of on 09.02.2023 with a direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, to consider his case. Though he submitted the Court’s order along with a representation, no decision has been taken and he has not been relocated. Instead, the authorities are now attempting to dispossess him without due process, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (v) The Petitioner submitted that the Non-Veg Trader’s Association, Bhubaneswar, also approached the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for allotment of space, whereupon the BMC Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 initiated steps for construction of a dedicated market for non-veg traders, as is evident from the letter dated 22.03.2023. (vi) The Petitioner contended that despite his long possession, Opposite Party No. 8 initiated Case No. A.G.(Audit–1)/EC/Evic/2023-24 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, at the instance of Opposite Party No. 3, without conducting any enquiry or affording him opportunity of hearing. On 09.01.2024, he learnt that the proceeding had already been disposed of, and subsequently received the final order dated 10.01.2024 directing him to vacate. He was neither allowed to file a reply nor adduce evidence. The order was thus passed mechanically, in breach of the principles of natural justice. (vii) The Petitioner asserted that the order dated 10.01.2024 proceeded on the assumption that the land belonged to Opposite Party No. 7 on the basis of a report from the BDA, even though the Petitioner has been in long and continuous possession and both BDA and BMC were aware of the earlier order of this Court. The recommendation for eviction is therefore unjustified and arbitrary. (viii) The Petitioner submitted that he and his family have been using the site for their livelihood for decades, while many others similarly occupy Government land in the locality. The State authorities themselves have admitted his possession. He has already applied for settlement before the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, and the application remains pending consideration. (ix) The Petitioner contended that both the Estate Officer and the learned Appellate Authority acted mechanically, without proper enquiry or judicial application of mind, and merely relied on prior proceedings. Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (x) The Petitioner asserted that the attempt to forcibly dispossess him despite pending applications for settlement is de hors statutory provisions, illegal, and infringes his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The scheduled land measuring Ac.1.6010 decimals under Plot No. 249, Khata No. 76, Mouza–Bhouma Nagar, Bhubaneswar Sadar Tahasil is recorded in the name of the Government Authority, namely the Accountant General, Odisha. The land was allotted for the purpose of the A.G. Staff Colony and therefore falls within the definition of “public premises” under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (ii) The Petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring Ac.0.018 decimals of the said premises and is running a mutton shop styled as “Farid Mutton Shop” without any permission, consent, or authorisation from the Accountant General, Odisha. (iii) Consequent thereto, eviction notices under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were issued on 25.10.2023 and 20.11.2023, affording the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to appear, file representation, and contest the proceedings. (iv) The protection relied upon by the Petitioner pertains to a street vending site in the proposed vending zone of BMC/BDA, which has no nexus with the unauthorised occupation in the A.G. Colony premises. Page 6 of 9 (v) The Petitioner also relied on a Food Safety Registration Certificate and a BMC Trade Licence. These documents only permit carrying on of business activity and do not create or confer any right, title, or interest Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 in the land. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7. 8. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The central issue essentially turns on whether the petitioner’s continued possession of the subject land can be protected in the face of proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was enacted to provide a summary mechanism for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises. Section 2(e) defines “public premises” in wide terms, encompassing properties belonging to or held on behalf of the Central Government and its authorities. Once land falls within this ambit, the statute permits no indulgence for encroachment and allows recourse to eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer. 10. The material on record discloses that the scheduled land, measuring Ac.1.6010 decimals under Plot No. 249, Khata No. 76, Mouza–Bhouma Nagar, stands recorded in the name of the Accountant General, Odisha, having been earmarked for staff quarters of the A.G. Colony. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that the land constitutes “public premises” within the meaning of Section 2(e). Page 7 of 9 11. The record further reveals that notices under Section 4 of the Act were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 issued to the petitioner on 25.10.2023 and 20.11.2023, calling upon him to show cause against eviction. The petitioner did appear on 14.11.2023 but did not submit a substantive reply. Thereafter, the Estate Officer proceeded to pass the order of eviction dated 10.01.2024 under Section 5. Moreover, the statutory appeal preferred under Section 9 was considered by the Appellate Authority, which, by order dated 19.03.2025, confirmed the finding of unauthorised occupation. The sequence of events shows due adherence to the statutory framework. In such view of the matter, the plea of violation of natural justice is not persuasive. The petitioner was issued notices, appeared in the proceeding, and was afforded opportunity but failed to contest the allegation of unauthorised occupation effectively. The fact that he did not secure a favourable outcome cannot by itself amount to denial of fair hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner’s reliance on trade licence, food safety registration, and electricity connection cannot confer any enforceable right over the land. These documents intended only to permit conduct of trade or ensure public health standards. The petitioner’s plea for settlement of the land in his favour is misconceived. Mere occupation or long possession of Government land does not create or confer any legal right, title, or interest, particularly when the property constitutes public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971. Once the premises are established to belong to a Government authority and the occupation is unauthorised, the Estate Officer, under the scheme of the Act, may order eviction. The Page 8 of 9 12. 13. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 statute does not contemplate regularisation of encroachment or conferment of rights upon an unauthorised occupant. V. CONCLUSION: 14. The materials on record clearly establish that the land in question constitutes “public premises” within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner’s occupation is unauthorised and unsupported by any legal right, title, or interest. The order of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admin)-cum-Estate Officer dated 10.01.2024 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 19.03.2025 demonstrate a proper application of the statutory scheme. In view of the foregoing analysis and in the scheme of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 15. 16. 17. (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 19th August, 2025 Page 9 of 9