Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20625 of 2022 (In the matters of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Chakradhara Joshi …. 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) CORAM: : : Mr. Amit Pr. Bose, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Ku. Mohapatro, Adv. -versus- Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:-14.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 29.11.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir in OPLE Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018, whereby the appeal was dismissed and demolition of the structure standing over the suit land was directed to be undertaken at the earliest. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order has been passed without conducting a proper enquiry, and in disregard of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018. Page 1 of 15
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner is the owner in possession of Hal Plot No. 2967/9539 under Khata No. 1078/1516, measuring Ac. 0.055 dec., situated in Mouza–Larkipali in the district of Bolangir. The petitioner is stated to have encroached upon an area measuring Ac. 0.075 dec. of Plot No. 2968 under Khata No. 955, which is adjacent to his homestead land. (ii) Since the petitioner is the encroacher of Plot No. 2968, an encroachment proceeding bearing No. 526 of 2006 was initiated against him under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1962 (OPLE Act). In the said proceeding, the petitioner appeared and prayed for settlement of the land on the ground of his long-standing possession. However, his prayer was rejected, and the encroachment case was disposed of by directing the petitioner to vacate the suit land vide order dated 07.05.2007. (iii) Being aggrieved by the above order of eviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bolangir, bearing Appeal Case No. 5 of 2007, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed another appeal, being Appeal No. 8 of 2018, before the Collector, Bolangir, which was dismissed on 15.03.2018 for non-prosecution and for not accepting the grounds stated for the delay in filing the appeal. (iv) The homestead land of the petitioner appertaining to Plot No. 1028/1670 measuring Ac. 1.05 dec. and Plot No. 1019/1672 Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 measuring Ac. 0.32 dec. under Khata No. 50 of Mouza Chudapali, Bolangir had been acquired by the Government for the purposes of the Lower Suktel Irrigation Project. In the encroachment appeal referred to above, the petitioner submitted before the appellate authority that, since his homestead land had been acquired and he had become a displaced person, the encroached land mentioned above ought to be settled in his name against the acquisition of his homestead land, in terms of the rehabilitation and resettlement policy. (v) In Appeal No. 8 of 2018, the Collector, acting as the Land Acquisition Officer and as the appellate authority under the OPLE Act, called for reports from the Executive Officer of the Municipality and the Executive Engineer, LSIWC & B Division. The Executive Officer reported that the Municipality had no right over the land in question, and the Executive Engineer stated that he had no authority to settle the land. On consideration of the materials placed before him, the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.03.2018. (vi) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2018, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018. This Court, after hearing the writ petition, disposed of the same vide order dated 05.01.2022 with an observation that Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018 ought to have been decided in the presence of the petitioner. This Court directed that the petitioner be given at least one opportunity of hearing and that, in the event of Page 3 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 such rehearing, the appellate authority may use its fact-finding agency to verify the petitioner’s plea of being a landless person. (vii) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the appeal was heard afresh by the Collector, Bolangir. The petitioner submitted further pleadings and documents in support of his case and placed his grievances before the Collector. (viii) The learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir, after hearing the petitioner as well as the State counsel and after perusing the materials available on record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02.06.2022. The said order was communicated to the petitioner on 29.07.2022. (ix) The petitioner had also filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 22004 of 2018 before this Court seeking settlement of the encroached land in his name on the ground that he was entitled to homestead land under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy. This
Decision
Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 25.11.2019 with a direction that, in the event the petitioner filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir within three weeks, the Collector shall examine the same by conducting an enquiry and take a decision in accordance with law. (x) Pursuant to the above order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought reports from the concerned authorities. The Executive Officer, Bolangir Municipality, vide letter dated 07.01.2020, reported that the land in question belonged to the Government (Revenue Page 4 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Department) and that the Municipality had no right or authority over it. (xi) Likewise, the Executive Engineer, L.S.R.R.C. & B Division, Bolangir, vide letter dated 09.01.2020, stated that the Land Acquisition Officer was not the competent authority to settle encroached Government land and that, under the R&R Policy, no provision existed for allotment of such land beyond the designated R&R Colony. It was further noted that the petitioner had already been included in the beneficiary schedule for allotment of Ac. 0.10 dec. of land in the R&R Colony. (xii) Subsequently, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir, passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 in Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018 directing eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. (xiii) In light of the above factual background culminating in the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 directing eviction of the petitioner from the land in question, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner submitted that he is the owner in possession of Hal Plot No. 2967/9539 under Khata No. 1078/1516 measuring Ac. 0.055 dec in Mouza Larkipali, Bolangir, and that he is in possession of a portion of the adjacent Government land under Plot No. 2968 under Khata No. 955. Page 5 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (ii) The petitioner submitted that his homestead land measuring Ac. 1.05 dec in Plot No. 1028/1670 and Ac. 0.32 dec in Plot No. 1019/1672 under Khata No. 50 of Mouza Chudapali was acquired for the Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, and that he therefore became a displaced person. He submitted that he had prayed before the appellate authority that the land in his possession be settled in his favour in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. (iii) The petitioner submitted that in Appeal Case No. 8 of 2018, the Collector, acting as the Land Acquisition Officer and as the appellate authority, did not conduct the enquiry required of him and instead only sought opinions from the Executive Officer, Bolangir Municipality, and the Executive Engineer, LSIWC and B Division, both of whom stated that they had no authority over the land. The appeal was thereafter dismissed on 15.03.2018. (iv) The petitioner submitted that he preferred W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018, which was disposed of on 05.01.2022 with an observation that the appeal ought to have been decided in his presence and with a direction that he be given at least one opportunity of hearing. The Court further directed that the authority verify his plea of being a landless person. He submitted that despite these directions, the Collector dismissed the appeal on 02.06.2022 without conducting the required enquiry, and that the order was communicated to him only on 29.07.2022. (v) The petitioner submitted that he had also filed W.P.(C) No. 22004 of 2018 seeking settlement of the land in his favour under the Page 6 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 25.11.2019 with a direction to the Collector to examine any such application by conducting an enquiry and taking a decision in accordance with law. Pursuant to that order, the Executive Officer, Bolangir Municipality reported on 07.01.2020 that the land belonged to the Revenue Department and that the Municipality had no right over it. (vi) The petitioner submitted that the Executive Engineer, LSRRC and B Division, by letter dated 09.01.2020, stated that the Land Acquisition Officer was not the competent authority to settle Government land beyond the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Colony and that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy had no provision for allotment of such land. He submitted that his name had nonetheless been included in the beneficiary schedule for allotment of Ac. 0.10 dec of land in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Colony. According to him, despite this, the Collector proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 directing eviction while the process relating to settlement under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy was still pending. (vii) The petitioner submitted that he has constructed his dwelling house over a portion of the land in his possession, and that continuation of the eviction proceedings would result in demolition of his dwelling. He therefore prayed that, in the event he does not succeed in the OPLE proceeding, the authorities may protect his dwelling house by adjusting the area in his possession with his Page 7 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 private land or with the land allotted to him under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. (viii) The petitioner submitted that, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the same Collector, while acting in his capacity as the Land Acquisition Officer, had initiated proceedings to examine whether the encroached land could be settled in his favour, and that such process is still pending. At the same time, the very same authority, while acting as the appellate authority under the OPLE Act, has proceeded to pass the impugned order of eviction. According to the petitioner, this amounts to the authority taking inconsistent stands, which is impermissible in law and renders the impugned order wholly unjustifiable. (ix) The petitioner submitted that other persons similarly situated, who have encroached Government land in the vicinity, have not been subjected to OPLE proceedings, and that he has been victimised by the conduct of the Collector. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It was submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner is not correct. In compliance with the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018, a proper enquiry was conducted through the Tahasildar, Balangir, who submitted a detailed factual report regarding the petitioner’s claim. According to the said report, the petitioner and his son, Sri Nrusingha Charan Page 8 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Joshi, are retired Government teachers receiving monthly pensions, and another son, Sri Santosh Kumar Joshi, is a salaried Government teacher. It was further submitted that the petitioner has Ac. 1.25 dec of land recorded in his name in village Chudapali under Khata No. 50, and that Ac. 9.01 dec of land stands recorded in the name of his father, late Bigyananda Joshi, in village Daupali under Khata No. 13. (ii) It was submitted that Plot No. 2967/9539 under Khata No. 1078/1516 measuring Ac. 0.055 dec in Mouza Larkipali stands recorded in the name of the petitioner’s son, Sri Nrusingha Charan Joshi, who has constructed a three-storeyed residential building over the said land and is residing there. Apart from these properties, the petitioner is stated to be in unauthorised occupation of Plot No. 2968 under Khata No. 955 of Mouza Larkipali measuring Ac. 0.075 dec, which is adjacent to his residential plot. The petitioner is stated to have constructed an asbestos-roofed structure on a portion of the land, kept the remaining portion vacant, and installed a tube well there. (iii) It was submitted that the petitioner and his family members are neither homestead-less nor landless, nor do they fall within any category of displaced persons warranting allotment of land under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. (iv) It was submitted that due procedure was followed by the Collector, Bolangir while disposing of OPLE Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018 by order dated 02.06.2022. It was further submitted that, as per the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Lower Page 9 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Suktel Irrigation Project, the land in question cannot be allotted to the petitioner since it does not fall within any Rehabilitation and Resettlement colony. (v) It was submitted that the Executive Engineer, Lower Suktel Rehabilitation and Resettlement Camps and Buildings Division, has reported that land can be allotted only within the designated Rehabilitation and Resettlement colonies reserved for displaced persons. (vi) It was submitted that there is no provision in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy to settle the land under the petitioner’s occupation or to protect the petitioner’s dwelling house against eviction on the basis of acquisition of his earlier homestead land. According to the Opposite Parties, the petitioner’s claim has already been rejected in OPLE Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018 and the present writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 5. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The principal question for consideration in the instant case is whether the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Bolangir in OPLE Appeal Case No. 08 of 2018 suffers from any illegality, procedural irregularity or non- compliance with the earlier directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018, and whether the said order warrants interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Page 10 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 7. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference under Article 226 in matters arising out of the OPLE Act is limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact unless the order under challenge suffers from perversity, non-application of mind, violation of statutory procedure, or disregard of principles of natural justice. The contours of judicial review are thus confined to examining whether the authority has acted in accordance with law. 8. By order dated 05.01.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 10812 of 2018, this Court observed that the Misc. Appeal (OPLE) No. 8 of 2018 had been dismissed for non-prosecution and also on refusal to condone the delay, and keeping in view the plight of the petitioner, the matter was required to be reheard after giving the petitioner at least one opportunity to appear and contest the appeal. This Court also took note of the petitioner’s plea that he was a landless person, and accordingly directed the Appellate Authority to use its agency to obtain a fact-finding report to ascertain whether the petitioner and his son were, in fact, landless in the State after acquisition of their land. 9. In compliance with the above directions, the Collector called for a factual report regarding the petitioner’s status. The report of the Tahasildar, Balangir, as placed on record by the Opposite Parties, indicates that the petitioner and his immediate family members are in possession of considerable landed property, including homestead land, and that they also derive pensionary income. The report also notes that Plot No. 2967/9539, recorded in the name of the Page 11 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 petitioner’s son, contains a three-storeyed residential building in which the family resides. These findings prima facie negate the petitioner’s assertion of being “landless” for the purposes of seeking rehabilitation benefits or settlement of encroached Government land. 10. The materials on record further reveal that the land encroached by the petitioner, namely Plot No. 2968 under Khata No. 955, is undisputedly Government land. Proceedings under the OPLE Act were initiated in 2006, and the petitioner’s prayer for settlement of the land was rejected in 2007. The petitioner unsuccessfully pursued two statutory appeals, and even after the directions of this Court for rehearing, the appellate authority reassessed the matter and reiterated that the petitioner has no lawful claim for settlement of Government land. 11. The petitioner has relied heavily on the fact that his earlier homestead land was acquired for the Lower Suktel Irrigation Project and that he has been categorised as a displaced person. The record, however, demonstrates that under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy, allotment of homestead land is confined to designated R&R colonies. The communication of the Executive Engineer dated 09.01.2020 categorically states that no provision exists for settling encroached Government land outside the R&R colony. It further emerges from the record that land measuring Ac. 0.10 dec in the R&R colony has Page 12 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 also been allotted to the petitioner in accordance with the option exercised by him. 12. Having regard to the materials on record, the petitioner’s plea that the encroached land ought to be settled in his favour against the acquisition of his earlier homestead land has no statutory foundation. There is neither a provision under the OPLE Act nor any clause in the R&R Policy enabling the competent authority to regularise such encroachment on the basis of displacement. Judicial review cannot be exercised to create rights that are unsupported by law. 13. Further, the plea that the Collector acted inconsistently by first examining the petitioner’s claim under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy and later proceeding with eviction under the OPLE Act does not merit acceptance. The Collector performs distinct statutory roles under different enactments. The initiation of an enquiry pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 22004 of 2018 cannot operate as a legal bar against the discharge of his duties under the OPLE Act, particularly when the enquiry under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement framework culminated in a clear finding that settlement of the encroached land was impermissible. 14. The record further discloses that the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after considering the fact-finding report. The contention that no enquiry was conducted is therefore factually incorrect. Once the appellate authority, upon reconsideration, Page 13 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 concluded that the petitioner is not landless, that no right exists for settlement of the encroached land, and the petitioner continues to occupy Government land unauthorisedly, there was no infirmity in directing eviction in accordance with the OPLE Act. 15. This Court is mindful of the petitioner’s contention that he has constructed a dwelling house over the encroached land and that any eviction would cause hardship. Hardship, however, cannot override statutory requirements. The law does not confer a right to continue in unauthorised occupation of Government land merely because a structure has been raised thereon. Any relief in the nature of protection or rehabilitation must flow from the applicable policy framework, and in the present case, the petitioner already stands included in the beneficiary list for allotment of land in the R and R colony. 16. On a consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds no perversity, procedural irregularity, or violation of the principles of natural justice in the passing of the impugned order. The Collector has acted within the framework of the OPLE Act and in compliance with the earlier directions of this Court. V. CONCLUSION: 17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir in OPLE Appeal Case No.08 of 2018. The petitioner has not established any legal right to seek Page 14 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 settlement of the encroached Government land, and the direction for eviction is in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 19. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 20. The authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th Nov., 2025/ Page 15 of 15