Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK I.A. No.4014 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024 (An application for recalling of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024) Diptimayee Patra & Anr. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Advocate Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Along with associates (for O.P No.3) Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with associates (for O.P No.4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-01.05.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. I.A. No.4014 of 2025 has been filed by the Opposite Party No.4/ (Rabindra Samanta) for recalling the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024. Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
Legal Reasoning
2. Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Petitioner in this I.A. is the Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.15398
Decision
of 2024. He further submitted that the Writ Petition has been disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2025 at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the present Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner (Rabindra Samanta) could not bring the relevant facts to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing. In such premises, he submitted that the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024 may be recalled and the Petitioner may be heard afresh. 3. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and the averments made in the I.A., prayer is allowed. Order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024 is recalled and the following judgment/ order is passed. 4. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to initiate eviction proceedings against Opposite Party No.4 for unauthorized encroachment on a public road obstructing access to their property, and to ensure compliance with prior judicial directions and statutory obligations. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioners purchased the scheduled properties from their respective vendors. The Record of Rights (ROR) was published in the name of Diptimayee Patra and Sarmistha Patra, reflecting ‘Stitiban’ status. The Petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the said lands. Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (ii) In 2020, Opposite Party No.4 (Rabindra Samanta) began constructing temporary sheds/shop rooms on the public road in front of the Petitioners’ property. The entire frontage and access to Petitioners’ land was blocked due to this construction. (iii) On objection by the Petitioners, Opp. Party No.4 claimed to have municipal permission for the same. On an RTI application, Petitioners obtained a letter dated 21.06.2018 from the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality (Opp. Party No.3), allegedly permitting Opp. Party No.4 to install temporary structures. (iv) The Petitioners approached this High Court challenging the said permission. The High Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 directed Opp. Party No.3 to consider Petitioners’ grievance and decide after granting hearing to both parties. (v) Pursuant to the directions of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023, the Petitioners appeared before the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality on 08.01.2024 along with a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, notice was issued fixing the date of hearing on 19.01.2024, during which both the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 appeared and it was mutually decided that a joint inspection would be conducted to verify the allegations of encroachment. (vi) Accordingly, the Executive Officer directed the Tahasildar, Puri to carry out a detailed enquiry. Pursuant to this, the Revenue Inspector, Balukhanda conducted an on-site inspection and submitted a report through the Tahasildar on 15.03.2024, wherein it was categorically confirmed that there was unauthorized encroachment upon public Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 land, which was obstructing the Petitioners’ access to their respective plots. (vii) Opp. Party No.4 filed a separate writ without impleading the Petitioners. High Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 directed authorities to consider Opp. Party No.4’s grievance regarding rehabilitation/relocation, and maintain status quo till then. Petitioners moved Intervention and Recall Applications in that writ, which was disposed of with directions to the Municipality to proceed per earlier orders. (viii) Despite the clear findings of encroachment in the enquiry report and the binding directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023, no steps have been taken by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality to evict Opposite Party No.4 from the encroached public road. (ix) The Executive Officer has failed to act in compliance with either the court’s directions or the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Puri, thereby allowing the illegality to persist unabated. In blatant disregard of the terms and conditions of the original allotment, Opposite Party No.4 not only continues to occupy the public road but has also constructed permanent cemented structures, despite the original permission, if any, being limited to temporary installations and having long since lapsed. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (i) The petitioners submitted that their Right to Free Movement and Passage under Articles 19 and 21 is being violated by the obstruction of access to their property. The inaction of the authorities violates Article 14 by treating similarly situated persons differently and enabling illegal encroachment. (ii) The Petitioners were not made parties to W.P.(C) No. 5690 of 2024 despite being directly affected, which is against principles of natural justice. The municipal permission dated 21.06.2018, issued by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality, was expressly time-bound, non- renewable, and restricted to the installation of temporary structures made of temporary materials, with a condition that public access and traffic must not be obstructed. However, Opposite Party No.4 has blatantly violated these conditions by constructing permanent cemented shop rooms on the public road. This encroachment is further contradicted by the Municipality’s own subsequent order dated 14.05.2024, which categorically states that, in the interest of public welfare and to ensure the free flow of traffic, public roads cannot be allotted for running private businesses, clearly undermining the continued occupation by Opposite Party No.4. (iii) The Executive Officer, Puri Municipality has failed to take any action on the Tahasildar’s Enquiry Report dated 15.03.2024, which unambiguously confirmed the existence of encroachment on public land obstructing the Petitioners’ access. Despite being bound by the directions of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023 to consider and dispose of the Petitioners’ grievance in accordance with law, the Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 Executive Officer has willfully neglected to comply. This inaction has resulted in the continued and unlawful occupation of a public road by Opposite Party No.4, effectively permitting a public nuisance and facilitating an ongoing illegality in violation of constitutional and statutory obligations. (iv) The unauthorized occupation squarely falls within the definition under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The Municipality’s failure to invoke the eviction mechanism under the 1972 Act is illegal and arbitrary. (v) The Petitioners seek interim direction restraining renewal of the 2018 allotment letter till disposal of the main writ petition to prevent further prejudice. Balance of convenience lies with Petitioners who are facing irreversible damage to their property access and enjoyment. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: (i) The Opposite Parties submit that the permission granted to Opposite Party No.4 on 21.06.2018 was for temporary sheds on government land, issued as per norms and subject to conditions. The Executive Officer has complied with the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023 by holding a hearing and ordering a joint inspection. Further action could not be taken due to the status quo order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5690 of 2024 regarding Opposite Party No.4’s rehabilitation plea. Hence, the delay is due to judicial restraint, not administrative inaction. Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 7. 8. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The core grievance of the Petitioners concerns obstruction of access to their respective plots by unauthorized structures erected by Opposite Party No. 4 on the public road abutting their land. The Record of Rights stands published in the names of Diptimayee Patra and Sarmistha Patra, reflecting the status of “Stitban” lands, and there is no dispute regarding the Petitioners’ possession thereof. 9. The facts on record reveal that the permission dated 21.06.2018 issued by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality in favor of Opposite Party No. 4 was expressly limited in scope: time-bound, non-renewable, and restricted to the installation of temporary sheds using temporary materials, with a clear stipulation that public access and traffic must not be obstructed. However, the Tahasildar’s report dated 15.03.2024, pursuant to a joint inspection, categorically confirms that Opp. Party No.4 has encroached upon public land and constructed permanent cemented structures, thereby obstructing the Petitioners’ access. This, by itself, renders the occupation unlawful and in violation of the original terms of allotment. 10. The Executive Officer, despite being directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023 to adjudicate the Petitioners’ grievance upon hearing all concerned parties, has failed to initiate action under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Such inaction, despite a confirmed encroachment by the Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 competent revenue authorities, amounts to administrative nonfeasance and subverts the statutory duty of the Municipality to safeguard public property held in trust for the community. 11. This Court finds that the plea of status quo granted in W.P.(C) No. 5690 of 2024 cannot be invoked to indefinitely shield an illegal encroachment, particularly when the Petitioners, who are directly prejudiced by the encroachment, were not impleaded in that proceeding. A status quo order cannot legalize an otherwise unlawful act, nor can it override or nullify a prior direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023, especially when compliance with the latter has been obstructed under the garb of the former. 12. The right of the Petitioners to unimpeded access to their land is well recognised in law and forms an integral part of their enjoyment of property. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has emphasized that no person has a legal right to encroach upon public land, and that even long-standing encroachments must be cleared in the interest of the public. Specifically, in the case of Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa1, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some mis-understanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum.” 12004 (8) SCC 733 Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 13. Applying the abovementioned precedent to the case in hand, this Court reiterates that public roads cannot be diverted or obstructed for private gain, and municipal authorities are duty-bound to restore such land to its intended public use. The obstruction of the Petitioners’ right of access, if allowed to persist, would constitute a violation of their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) & (e), and 21 of the Constitution. A public authority’s failure to act against encroachment despite judicial directions, and its passive complicity in enabling such obstruction, constitutes a breach of constitutional obligations and an affront to the rule of law. V. CONCLUSION: 14. In the light of the above, the construction raised by Opposite Party No.4 upon the public road, in breach of the terms of the original 2018 permission and contrary to the findings of the Tahasildar’s inspection report dated 15.03.2024, is hereby declared unauthorized and illegal. Consequently, the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality, is directed to initiate eviction proceedings against the Opp. Party No.4 under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 15. The eviction process must be concluded within a maximum period of sixty (60) days, unless specifically restrained by a competent judicial forum. Opp. Party No.4 shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the course of such proceedings. Simultaneously, should Opp. Party No.4 be found eligible, the Municipality may consider his application for relocation or rehabilitation under any Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 applicable policy or scheme, including the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. However, it is clarified that consideration of relocation shall not operate as a bar to eviction or as a condition precedent to the enforcement of statutory eviction powers. 16. Given the conflicting directions in W.P.(C) No.39022 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.5690 of 2024, the Petitioners are granted liberty to apply for impleadment and seek modification or vacation of the status quo order in W.P.(C) No.5690 of 2024 within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of this judgment. 17. Further, the Municipal Commissioner, Puri, shall file a detailed compliance affidavit before this Court within seventy-five (75) days from the date of this order, indicating the precise steps taken to implement the eviction proceedings in accordance with law and the timeline prescribed herein. 18. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition as well as the I.A. stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th June, 2025/ Page 10 of 10