The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16286 of 2023 Tilotama Mohanty and another …. Petitioners Represented By Adv. Mr. D. Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. B. Tripathy, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA. Mr. U.C. Mishra, Advocate for O.P.No.4 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 13.08.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue a Rule NISI in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs, calling upon the Opp. parties; Page 1 of 5 Order No. 20. // 2 // As to why the order dt.9.3.2023 passed vide Annexure-5 shall not be held to be illegal, invalid and be quashed; AND As to why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to restore the order dt.28.06.2001; And if the Opp. parties fails to show cause or shows insufficient cause or false cause, the said rule be made absolute eventually quashing the impugned order passed vide Annexure-5 and direct the Opp. parties to restore the order dt.28.06.2001; And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s)/writ(s) as deem fit and proper, And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Basudevpur in Lease Case No.171 of 2000 vide Letter No.2862 of 2006 under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972. The petitioner has been in occupation of Plot No.223 under Khata No. 1309 measuring Ac.0.03 decimal i.e. the ‘case land’ in this Writ Petition. The said land was settled in favour of the present petitioner No.1’s husband under Section 8(A) of the OPLE Act. The petitioner No.1’s husband expired on 13th February, 2022 and the widow petitioner No.1 is this Court now. Petitioner No.2 is the son of late Rama Kumar Mohanty and the Petitioner No.1 is the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // mother of the Petitioner No.2. So, the said application filed by the present petitioners has been successful under Section 8(A) application for settlement of the land. However, the Sub- Collector, Bhadrak vide order dated 28.06.2001 passed in Lease Case No.171 of 2000 held that as per report of audit para-4 the settlement of case land be cancelled and submission to RDC CD for confirmation. The cancellation of settlement be made by the lower Court Tahasildar, Basudevpur. Receipt the case record to Tahasildar, Basudevpur for cancellation of lease. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the encroacher, on being noticed, prayed inter alia for settlement under Section-8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972 as he is physically occupying the land for more than 30 years. The Tahasildar, Basudevpur inquired into the matter and submitted proposal to the Sub-Collector for settlement. After due inquiry and arriving at a finding that the Kissam-Rasta of the case land had lost its character and changed to Gharabari, the Sub- Collector following due procedure settled the case land in favour of Rama Kumar Mohanty on Rayati basis under Section-8(A) of the OPLE Act, 1972, vide order dated 28.6.2001. The recorded tenant continued to pay rent and Page 3 of 5 // 4 // holding tax to the authorities. After 17 years, the Tahasildar, Basudevpur in pursuance to the communication made by the Sub-Collector in its marginal order dated 02.03.2023 vide letter No.2862 dated 11.7.2006 disturbed the settlement made in favour of Rama Kumar Mohanty by deleting his name from the R.O.R recorded as under ‘Stitiban status to that of ’Rasta’ under Sarbasadharan Khata, without giving any notice to the recorded tenant and giving opportunity of hearing. 6. This Court earlier in a similar issue raised in W.P.(C) No.24528 of 2019 (Sanatan Nayak -vrs.- State of Odisha & Ors.) vide judgment dated 28.03.2025 has observed at Paragraphs- 8 and 9 as follows: that public lands serve a “8. Courts have consistently upheld this principle, reiterating larger community interest and cannot be allowed to be usurped for private purposes. 9. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa1 the Supreme Court addressed the issue of unauthorized constructions and held that while certain laws may allow for the regularization of such constructions, it should only be permitted in exceptional cases rather than as a general rule. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless Scheduled labourers Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually or members the of 1 (2004) 8 SCC 733 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.” 7. Now, in this case, pursuant to the order passed by the Sub- Collector, Bhadrak the case land has already been returned to the Khata of the Government and by virtue of the order of the Tahasildar, Basudevpur the settlement has been disturbed which is under challenge before this Court. 8. In such premises, this Court is of the view that since the land in question has already been returned to the Khata of the Government, the petitioners’ occupation over the said land is illegal. Hence, the petitioners are directed to vacate the land in question within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners do not vacate the said land within the time stipulated above, the Tahasildar, Basudevpur is at liberty to evict the petitioners from the said land in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Aug-2025 13:34:23 Page 5 of 5