Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA v. State of Odisha, represented

Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01.

#1. ORDER 18.08.2026 This matter taken up through hybrid arrangement.

#2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party.

#3. The Petitioners have approached this Court alleging, inter alia, that their family members/ancestors were refugees from erstwhile East Pakistan and that they were brought by the Government in the year 1959 from the Amarda Refugee Relief Camp in the district of Mayurbhanj to Charibatia and thereafter to Bhubaneswar, where they were resettled and rehabilitated by the Government. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 18:23:16

#4. It the case of the Petitioners that Late Thakurchand Das, father of Petitioner No.2 and father-in- law of Petitioner No.1, was provided with two constructed hutments by the State Government along with the land appertaining to Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No.30, Laxmisagar-I, Khata No.1988, Plot No.673, in the year 1959-60. It is further stated that a shop-stall/shop room was also provided to Late Thakurchand Das for carrying on his business.

#5. The Petitioners rely upon Registered Bond No.7744 dated 22.07.1960 executed between the Governor of Odisha and Late Thakurchand Das, under which, according to the Petitioners, a sum of Rs.1,900/- was advanced, comprising Rs.1,300/- towards the cost of the residential hutment and Rs.600/- towards the cost of the shop-stall. The Petitioners further rely upon Bond No.539 dated 22.07.1960, pursuant to which a business loan of Rs.1,500/- was advanced in favour of Late Thakurchand Das.

#6. It is further submitted that the residential hutment and shop-stall had already been made over to Late Thakurchand Das prior to execution of the aforesaid bonds. According to the Petitioners, the entire loan dues along with interest have subsequently been cleared through challan dated 02.01.2013. It is stated that the factum of repayment was also communicated to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 18:23:16 concerned authorities of the State Government by letter dated 19.08.2013.

#7. The further case of the Petitioners is that they and their family members have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises and have been carrying on business from the said shop room for about six decades. It is submitted that the shop room is the principal/only source of livelihood of the Petitioners and their family members.

#8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that on

03.08.2026 officials of the Opposite Party visited the land in question and threatened the Petitioners with eviction and demolition of the shop room on the ground that the land is required for construction of an approach road to the Cuttack-Puri Road. It is alleged that such threats have continued thereafter and that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the Petitioners before proposing to take such coercive action.

#9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners have regularly paid the applicable property taxes and have cleared the dues relating to the aforesaid Government loans. It is contended that any demolition of the shop room or dispossession of the Petitioners without following due process of law would cause serious prejudice and irreparable injury to them, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 18:23:16 particularly when the shop is stated to be their source of livelihood.

#10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the available materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that, before any coercive or punitive action is taken against the Petitioners in respect of the premises in question, the Petitioners ought to be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing, particularly in view of their specific assertion regarding Government rehabilitation scheme, allotment/provision of the residential hutment and shop- stall, the bonds executed in the year 1960, the alleged repayment of the dues and their long-standing possession.

#11. It is made clear that this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any final opinion on the question of title, ownership, legality of the Petitioners’ occupation, validity of the allotment, or the right of the authorities to utilise the land for construction of an approach road. All such questions are left open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

#12. In the circumstances, the Opposite Party is directed to give the Petitioners an effective and reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive, punitive, demolition or eviction action against Petitioners in respect of the disputed premises. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 18:23:16 competent authority shall consider the documents and representations relied upon by the Petitioners.

#13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

#14. of.

#15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Sipun