Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21192 of 2025 along with CONTC No.3214 of 2025 (In the matters of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). (In W.P.(C) No.21192 of 2025) Bijayketan Sahoo …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party(s) : : Mr. Pradipta Ku. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Along with associates -versus- Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC Ms. Saswati Morarana, Adv. (In CONTC No.3214 of 2025) Mahesh Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Arjya Kumar Sarbadaman, Tahasildar, Ranpur, Nayagarh …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party(s) -versus- : :
Legal Reasoning
directions issued by this Court in related encroachment matters. (ix) During the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court, by order dated 20.08.2025, directed a joint verification of the site to be conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the local Sarpanch. In compliance, the Tahasildar filed an affidavit enclosing the Revenue Inspector’s joint verification report and the accompanying sketch map reflecting the measurements recorded on site. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner submitted that he did not pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Sub-Collector, as the present proceeding is a continuation of earlier actions already placed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14045 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction for demarcation and further action in accordance with law. The petitioner further submitted that, pursuant to the said direction, the Revenue Inspector, Chandpur conducted a demarcation and, in his report dated 25.11.2024, recorded that the petitioner’s house stands over Plot No.1471 and that the extension Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 of the semi-circular “taza” structure measuring about 123 square kadi projects towards the road but does not obstruct public passage. (ii) The petitioner submitted that Plot No.1471 under Khata No.450, measuring Ac.0.050 dec. and recorded as homestead, originally stood in the name of his late father, Narayan Sahoo, and is now jointly succeeded by five sons and four daughters. It was further submitted that the village road lies over Government Plot No.1492 under Khata No.1211. (iii) It was submitted that repeated allegations of encroachment had earlier compelled the petitioner’s father to institute Civil Suit No.20 of 2013 seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of Plot No.1471. Upon his death, the petitioner and his siblings were substituted. The State of Odisha and the Tahasildar, Ranpur, though defendants, did not contest the suit. The civil court, by judgment dated 13.12.2024, held that the “taza” and verandah constructed on Plot No.1471 did not encroach upon the village road and permanently restrained the defendants from entering upon the said plot. It was submitted that, in view of this decree, initiation of a further encroachment proceeding was impermissible. (iv) The petitioner further submitted that the civil court, while decreeing the suit, also took note of this Court’s order in CRLREV No.811 of 2011, thereby examining the entire earlier dispute concerning the alleged obstruction of the village road. Since the decree has attained finality, not having been challenged by the State Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 or the Tahasildar, it was submitted that no fresh encroachment proceeding could have been initiated. (v) With respect to the intervention petition filed by certain villagers, the petitioner submitted that the allegations therein merely repeat issues raised in earlier proceedings and stand concluded by the civil court decree. The materials relied on by the interveners, it is contended, relate to past disputes which no longer survive. (vi) It was further submitted that pursuant to this Court’s order dated 20.08.2025, a fresh demarcation was carried out in the presence of the petitioner and the local Sarpanch. The Revenue Inspector’s subsequent report, filed by the Tahasildar, is stated to be consistent with the earlier demarcation and reflects that the alleged projection comprises only a semi-circular “taza” and a few steps similar to structures of adjoining houses, and does not obstruct the village pathway. (vii) Relying on the civil court decree and both demarcation reports, the petitioner submitted that initiation of a further encroachment proceeding is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (viii) It was further submitted that Plot No.1471 stands jointly succeeded by all legal heirs of late Narayan Sahoo, and initiation of the encroachment proceeding against only one heir is unsustainable. (ix) On the strength of the above, the petitioner submitted that the action taken in L.E. Case No.315 of 2024–25 is without jurisdiction Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 and liable to be quashed. Although an appellate remedy was available, the petitioner submitted that he was constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction since the impugned steps constitute a continuation of earlier proceedings already examined by this Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions: (i) It was submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.08.2025, a joint verification of the disputed site was conducted on 29.08.2025 in the presence of the petitioner and the local Sarpanch. The verification was carried out on the basis of the Revenue Inspector’s report of the same date, which records that although Plot No.1471 under Khata No.450 contains the petitioner’s homestead, the petitioner has extended a semi-circular portico (“taza”) and house stairs into Government Plot No.1492 under Khata No.1211, thereby encroaching upon the public road. The Revenue Inspector is stated to have measured the encroachment as 16 links (cid:215) 5 links, in addition to 134 square links covered by the semi-circular projection, which, according to the report, causes hindrance to public use. The Tahasildar submitted that the joint verification confirmed these findings and has placed on record the Revenue Inspector’s report, the accompanying sketch map, and his own report dated 01.09.2025. Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENERS: 7. Learned counsel for the Interveners made the following submissions: (i) It was submitted that the petitioner’s father had earlier encroached upon the public road, leading to initiation of Crl. Misc. Case No.25 of 2008 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh disposed of the said proceeding on 07.09.2011 directing removal of the encroachment. A challenge to the said order in CRLREV No.811 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 09.04.2013, and a subsequent miscellaneous application for recall was also dismissed on 08.01.2014. (ii) It was submitted that the encroached area had been measured as 400 square links in the earlier Encroachment Case No.287 of 2007, and that Encroachment Case No.315 of 2024–25 was initiated only after the Tahasildar dropped the earlier L.E. case. The Interveners allege that the Tahasildar has acted in collusion with the petitioner, reducing the measurement of the encroachment from 400 sq. links to 215 sq. links, and thereafter to 123 sq. links. (iii) The Interveners further submitted that repeated writ petitions and contempt proceedings had to be initiated to secure compliance with the orders passed in earlier matters, including W.P.(C) No.20536 of 2016, CONTC No.924 of 2017, CONTC No.382 of 2022, and W.P.(C) No.14045 of 2021. It is alleged that the petitioner, being a former Panchayat Samiti Member, obstructed implementation of Court Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 directions and continued construction over the encroached portion of the public road. (iv) The Interveners submitted that the present writ petition is untenable and liable to be dismissed as an abuse of the process of Court, and that the petitioner, being an encroacher of a village road, cannot claim any equitable relief. V. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX 8. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. 9. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the encroachment proceeding culminating in issuance of Form-Ka, Form-Kha and the final notice dated 22.04.2025 in Encroachment Case No.315 of 2024–25 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An ancillary issue concerns the continuance of the contempt petition. 10. Before examining the factual matrix, it is appropriate to outline the settled legal position governing disputes under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and the scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters. 11. The OPLE Act is a complete code providing for initiation, inquiry and adjudication of cases of encroachment upon Government land by the competent authority, with a statutory appeal before the Sub- Collector. When such efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ court ordinarily exercises self-restraint and refrains from interfering unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 12. It is equally well settled that writ jurisdiction is not intended for resolution of disputed questions of fact requiring technical analysis of measurements, comparison of multiple demarcation reports or determination of the precise extent of any construction vis-(cid:224)-vis Government land. These matters fall within the statutory domain of the revenue authorities. 13. At the same time, when factual material of significance has been collected pursuant to directions of this Court after the issuance of the impugned notices, such material cannot be ignored. The competent authority, while proceeding under the OPLE Act, is duty-bound to take into account all relevant and material facts that have subsequently come on record. 14. The record reflects that over the years different measurements, namely 400 square links, 215 square links, 123 square links and 134 square links, have been recorded in various proceedings. This lack of uniformity indicated uncertainty regarding the alleged extent of encroachment. It was to remove this inconsistency that this Court, by order dated 20.08.2025, directed a joint verification of the site in the presence of the petitioner and the local Sarpanch. 15. The joint verification report dated 29.08.2025, prepared in the presence of the petitioner, the local Sarpanch, the Tahasildar, the Revenue Inspector and police personnel, together with the sketch map, now provides a clear and authoritative factual foundation. The report records that while the petitioner’s homestead stands on Plot No.1471 under Khata No.450, a portion of the semi-circular Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 portico at the entrance of the house, along with a set of stairs, extends beyond the homestead boundary towards Government Plot No.1492 under Khata No.1211, recorded as Rasta. The Revenue Inspector has specifically measured the encroached area as approximately 16 links in length and 5 links in breadth, forming the base of the structure, with an additional semi-circular projection covering about 134 square links which faces the public road. The report further notes that this projection and the house stairs are causing significant hindrance and difficulty to public use of the village pathway. These findings represent the most recent and reliable assessment of the physical situation. 16. It is undisputed that Form-Ka, Form-Kha and the final notice dated 22.04.2025 were issued prior to the Court-directed joint verification. Consequently, while issuing the impugned notices, the Tahasildar did not have the benefit of these latest and authoritative measurements which directly bear upon the central issue under the OPLE Act. 17. Now that the joint verification has resolved the earlier inconsistencies and produced a clear factual basis, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy on the strength of the earlier measurements alone. Since the subsequent demarcation contains material facts essential to a fair adjudication, the matter must be reconsidered in the light of the updated record. The civil court decree in Civil Suit No.20 of 2013 pertains only to Plot No.1471 and did not concern the alignment, Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 width or usage of Government Plot No.1492, and therefore does not conclude the question of encroachment on Government land. 18. In these circumstances, the impugned notices cannot be sustained in their present form. The Tahasildar is required to reassess the matter afresh, taking note of the joint verification report dated 29.08.2025, the sketch map, the materials in the encroachment record and the contentions of all parties, and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law.
Arguments
Ms. Saswati Morarana, Adv Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:- 06.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 29.11.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both the writ petition and the contempt petition arise out of the same factual background and involve the same parties, those were heard together. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the issuance of Form-Ka in Encroachment Case No. 315 of 2024–25, the consequential Form-Kha, and the final notice dated 22.04.2025 issued in the said proceeding. 3. CONTC No. 3214 of 2025 has also been taken up along with the Writ Petition, wherein the petitioner alleges non-compliance with certain prior directions of this Court in related encroachment proceedings. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 4. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner and his family members reside in Mouza–Chandpur, P.O. Ranpur, District Nayagarh. Their residential house stands over Plot No.1471 under Khata No.450, recorded as homestead in the name of the petitioner’s late father, Narayan Sahoo, and stated to be in their continuous possession for several decades. Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 (ii) In 2008, certain villagers of Chandpur initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh, alleging obstruction of a public road adjacent to the petitioner’s homestead. The said proceeding, registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.25 of 2008, culminated in an order dated 07.09.2011 directing removal of the obstruction. A challenge to the said order in CRLREV No.811 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 09.04.2013. (iii) Thereafter, the petitioner’s late father instituted Civil Suit No.20 of 2013 on 16.07.2013 before the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranpur seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of Plot No.1471. The suit was decreed on 13.12.2024, restraining the defendants therein from entering upon the said plot. (iv) Subsequently, Encroachment Case No.315 of 2024–25 was initiated under the provisions of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. In the said proceeding, Form-Ka was issued to the petitioner directing him to appear before the Tahasildar. The petitioner submitted his show-cause reply pursuant to the said notice. (v) Form-Kha was thereafter issued on 27.02.2025 directing him to remove the alleged encroachment within thirty days. (vi) A final notice dated 22.04.2025 was thereafter issued in continuation of the proceeding. Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 (vii) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders and notices issued in Encroachment Case No.315 of 2024–25. (viii) In the meantime, certain villagers sought intervention and also filed CONTC No.3214 of 2025 alleging non-compliance with earlier
Decision
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. 20. Form-Ka, Form-Kha and the final notice dated 22.04.2025 issued in Encroachment Case No.315 of 2024–25 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tahasildar, Ranpur, who shall issue notice to the petitioner and all concerned, afford them reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider the joint verification report dated 29.08.2025, the sketch map and all other relevant materials, and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of communication of this judgment. Until such fresh order is passed, no coercive action shall be taken pursuant to the earlier proceeding. 21. Insofar as CONTC No.3214 of 2025 is concerned, the direction issued by this Court on 20.08.2025 for joint verification stands fully complied with. The compliance affidavit enclosing the joint verification report, the sketch map and the Tahasildar’s report establishes that no issue of wilful disobedience now survives for Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 consideration. The contempt petition is, accordingly, rendered infructuous. 22. CONTC No.3214 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the Petitions stand vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th Nov., 2025 Page 13 of 13