Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19731 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Sudhansubala Naik @ Nayak …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Adv. M/s. Alok Kumar Panda, S. Dash, S. Bhuyan, A.K. Nayak, S. Mishra, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Taj Kumar, ASC M/s. Niranjan Panda-1, M.K. Panda, Adv. (for O.Ps.2 to 4) M/s. Biswambar Mohanty, Adv. Sunit Sahoo, Adv. ( For O.P.5) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-23.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the registered owner of the property in question vide plot No.102, Khata No.519, Mouza-Bhubaneswar, Unit No.31, Laxmisagar, has challenged the impugned order dated 29.04.2024/Annexure-11 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Department, Government of Odisha/ Opposite Party No.1 in Appeal No.52/2023. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The Petitioner has constructed a residential house over the property duly owned by her vide plot No.102, Khata No.519, Mouza- Bhubaneswar, Unit No.31, Laxmisagar. The plot of the Petitioner bearing No.102 comes after the plot Nos.93, 1356, 101 & 1357 of the said Mouza. Since there was no wider road to above mentioned plots, the said plot owners including the present Petitioner had voluntarily left some space from their own plots for construction of wider road to their private properties. According to the Petitioner, after some time, based on the said area the plan was approved and construction was made. 3. Apart from the plot No.102, the Petitioner also acquires another piece of land i.e. Plot No.97/1444, kissam of which is road (private road. A part of the said plot is being used by the Petitioner as a road and the rest part of the said property has been bounded with a boundary wall. It is pertinent to mention here that on 27.09.2005, the Opposite Party No.5 had purchased a property adjacent to the above noted plot of the Petitioner without even having a road access to the said property which is also established from the sketch map. Except four feet road, there is no direct public road to the property of the Opposite Party No.5 and the land claimed by the Opposite Party No.5 to be a public road, is exclusively the private property of the Petitioner and the other plot owners noted above. Since they had left certain portions from their own Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 3 properties for their private use, the Opposite Party No.5 has no right, title and interest over the said property at all. Thereafter, a dispute arose with respect to the said road. 4. Since the Opposite Party No.5 was not able to get proper road access to his above noted property, he had preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.16305 of 2022 with an allegation that at the time of alienation of the plot the original vendor had left an area of Ac.0.25 dec. out of the plot bearing No.266/1354 for the purpose of road which was never sold to anybody. It was also alleged therein that the present Petitioner had illegally managed to record an area of Ac.0.004 dec. out of the said Ac.0.25 dec. in her name during the settlement operation in respect of the Khata No.522 and Plot No.97/1444. It was further alleged that by showing the connecting road as 15ft. wide instead of 26ft. the Petitioner got her plan approved and subsequently constructed the boundary wall by acquiring the public road. Accordingly, in the said Writ Petition a prayer was made for clearance of the unauthorized encroachment made over the public road in question. 5. On hearing the said Writ Petition at admission stage, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2022 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation/ Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner dated 08.06.2022. 6. Thereafter, on being directed the Deputy Commissioner, A.O (O.D.A Court), Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation/ Opposite Party No.3 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 4 based on the allegation of unauthorized construction made over the Plot No.102 initiated a proceeding as per the provision under Section 91 of the O.D.A Act vide UAP Case No.53 of 2022 against the present Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that though the proceeding was initiated based on the allegation of construction over the public road over in respect of the Plot No.97/1444 of Khata No.522, the notice was issued in respect of the Plot No.102 which never a subject matter. In the said proceeding, notice to show-cause dated 30.09.2022 was issued against the Petitioner. The residential house of the Petitioner is constructed over the plot No.102. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Plot No.97/1444 is not a public road and except a boundary wall over some portion of the said plot, the Petitioner has not raised any other construction over the said property. 7. Be that as it may, on being noticed the Petitioner appeared in the said UAP Case and filed her reply. Thereafter, on hearing both the sides the authority concerned directed for demarcation of the Plot No.102. Since the said demarcation exercise was alleged to have been completed without issuance of notice to the Petitioner, an objection was raised by the Petitioner. Accordingly, though the demarcation was conducted for the second time, neither the Petitioner was allowed to participate in the said demarcation exercise nor was she provided opportunity to verify the report and sign the same. Thereafter, based on the said report the Opposite Party No.3 passed the final order on 10.10.2023 with an observation of making of unauthorized construction over the plot Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 5 No.99/1444 by the Petitioner. Accordingly, a direction was issued for removal of such unauthorized construction. It is worthwhile to mention here that the proceeding was initiated and notice to show cause was issued with respect to the plot No.102, the order was passed in respect of the plot No.97/1444. The Petitioner was communicated with the said order on 16.10.2023. 8. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.10.2023 and 16.10.2023 passed in the above noted UAP Case the Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.34904 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2023 with a direction to the Petitioner to prefer appeal as per the provision under Section 91(2) of the O.D.A Act. Accordingly, on being permitted the Petitioner on 30.10.2023 preferred an appeal vide Appeal No.52/2023. Upon filing of the appeal on 30.10.2023, though the case was posted for hearing on 29.04.2024 at 3.30 P.M, the Court functioned belatedly i.e. at 5.30 P.M. Since the counsel for the Appellant had some personal difficulties at the relevant point in time, he had filed a petition for postponement of the proceeding to some other day. Thereafter, the further status of the appeal at the instance of the Petitioner was not provided to the Petitioner. Despite the best efforts of the Petitioner, he was unable to get the status of the appeal. But, all of a sudden on 28.06.2024 the Petitioner/Appellant was served with the impugned order of dismissal of his appeal vide order dated 29.04.2024 through registered post. Hence, this Writ Petition. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 6 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the earlier occasion on the selfsame issue the Petitioner had filed a Civil Suit vide C.S. No.1530 of 2023 against the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 5 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar. In the said Suit she had prayed for declaration, confirmation of possession and for a permanent injunction with respect to the plot No.99/1444 (Northern side of the Petitioner’s plot i.e. Plot No.102). But, the Petitioner had withdrawn the said suit unconditionally. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the Written Note of Submissions: i. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to her and also in her absence that too in absence of her advocate. The said order has been filed in a whimsical manner. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this Writ Petition. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 4. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 made the following submissions: 5. In opposition, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 submits that after conducting of necessary inquiry since the Petitioner was found to be an unauthorized encroacher with respect to the plot Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 7 No.99/1444, there was a direction for clearance of the said unauthorized encroachment. He further contends that based on the allegation of the neighbor/Opposite Party No.5 the UAP Case was initiated. It was alleged therein that the concerned road is 26ft. x 41 ft. which is connected to the link-road of Cuttack Road. It is also alleged therein that the total land of Ac.0.25 dec. was left for road purpose, but out of which the Petitioner managed to record Ac.0.004 dec. of land in her name vide Plot No.99/1444. In the said UAP Case necessary inquiry was conducted through Amin. The Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) had approved the plan at the instance of the Petitioner vide BDA letter No.4080 dated 22.04.2000 for construction of building over the plot No.102 thereby showing availability of 15ft. width road. But, after enquiry it was found that the said 15ft. width road was allowed by the concerned land owner for being used by the users. The road has been developed and a drain has been constructed by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation over which the unauthorized construction has been made by the Petitioner. Though the plot No.99/1444 was shown as a road, the said land is recorded in the name of the Petitioner without any basis. 6. The Amin reports dated 23.09.2022 & 26.09.2022 show the unauthorized construction of wall by the Petitioner which clearly violates the building plan approved by the B.D.A. A sketch map to that effect has also been submitted by the concerned Amin on 09.01.2023. The Planning Assistant has also submitted a comparative statement on 31.03.2023. Pursuant to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 8 the approach of the Petitioner again two Amins were deputed for field enquiry who submitted their report on 11.08.2023 with sketch map. All the documents were produced before the learned O.D.A Court who after making necessary verification has passed the order dated 10.10.2023 and accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to remove all the unauthorized encroachments. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 7. In his opposition, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 submits that the Petitioner has constructed a two-storied house as per the plan approved by the B.D.A vide letter No.4080 of 2000. The said plan was approved upon satisfaction of the fact that there is availability of a road width 15 ft. for ingress and egress. The said 15ft. road has been developed by the Government authorities by making construction of drainage system and installation of electric poles over the said road. But, the Petitioner has made unauthorized construction over the said 15ft. road which creates disturbance in the ingress and egress over the said road. The said unauthorized construction has been made without having proper approval or permission from the authorities concerned. 8. Being aggrieved by the said unauthorized construction the Opposite Party No.5 had approached the Laxmisagar Police Station. Since no action was taken on the said request of the Opposite Party No.5, the Opposite Party No.5 had approached the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation by filing two grievance Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 9 petitions dated 26.04.2022 and 08.06.2022. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.5 approached this Court and finally pursuant to the direction of this Court the above noted UAP Case was registered before the O.D.A Court, B.M.C against the present Petitioner. He further contends that based on the direction of the said O.D.A Court necessary inquiry has been conducted by the concerned Amins at multiple times. He further contends that the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition in clear suppression of material facts. 9. He further contends that despite the direction of this Court the Petitioner did not produce necessary documents pertaining to the disputed property in question before the authority concerned. The allegation made by the Petitioner that the impugned order has been passed behind her back is false and baseless. The records of the UAP proceedings clearly demonstrate that from the very beginning, the Petitioner neither cooperated the UAP Court nor the Amin deputed by the Court. Her noncooperation is evident from multiple entries in the Court’s order sheets. Additionally, the order sheet of the Appellate Authority clearly shows that the Petitioner’s Counsel was present at the time of hearing. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. This Court has given its consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has carefully examined the pleadings, materials on record and the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 10 impugned orders passed by the authorities below. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the present lis, though projected by the contesting parties as a dispute concerning unauthorized construction over an alleged access road, in substance raises a far more fundamental issue touching the legality of the decision-making process adopted by the statutory authorities while exercising quasi-judicial powers under the Odisha Development Authorities Act. 11. The legitimacy of administrative action in a constitutional democracy does not depend solely upon the object sought to be achieved, but equally upon the fairness, transparency and procedural propriety with which such power is exercised. The doctrine of rule of law, which constitutes a basic feature of our constitutional framework, mandates that every statutory authority, howsoever wide in its powers may be, must act within the confines of fairness and reasonableness. It is now too well settled that procedural safeguards are not empty formalities; rather, they are substantive guarantees against arbitrary exercise of power. 12. The records reveal that the proceeding under Section 91 of the O.D.A. Act was initially instituted upon the allegations relating to unauthorized construction and encroachment over land allegedly being used as a road. However, a careful scrutiny of the materials indicates a serious procedural incongruity which this Court is unable to overlook. The initiation of notice and the show-cause proceeding were admittedly drawn in reference to Plot No.102 belonging to the Petitioner, upon Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 11 which her residential structure stands constructed. Curiously, the final order ultimately came to be passed in respect of Plot No.97/1444 by recording findings relating to alleged unauthorized construction thereupon. Such inconsistency between the foundational notice and the ultimate adjudication cannot be treated as a mere technical irregularity. The very purpose of a show-cause notice is to enable the affected person to effectively meet the allegations levelled against him or her. The notice forms the jurisdictional foundation of the proceeding and circumscribes the scope of adjudication. Any adjudicatory exercise travelling beyond the allegations contained in the notice amounts to violation of the elementary principles of natural justice. A person cannot be expected to defend a case which was never clearly put to him. Fair procedure necessarily postulates certainty of accusation, clarity of allegation and transparency of adjudicatory process. 13. This Court further finds substance in the grievance advanced by the Petitioner with regard to the manner in which the demarcation exercises were undertaken during the pendency of the UAP proceeding. The pleadings disclose repeated assertions that the demarcation was initially conducted without notice to the Petitioner and it was undertaken even during the subsequent enquiry, meaningful participation was not afforded to her. Though the Opposite Parties contend that multiple enquiries were carried out by deputing different Amins and that comparative reports and sketch maps were prepared, the materials Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 12 placed before this Court do not satisfactorily dispel the apprehension regarding procedural opacity. 14. In disputes involving alleged encroachment, boundary determination and road alignment, demarcation reports assume critically significant and often constitute the very basis for coercive action. Such exercise, therefore, cannot be reduced to a unilateral administrative ritual. The requirement of fairness in such proceedings is not confined merely to issuance of formal notice, it extends to ensuring real and effective participation of the affected party in the enquiry process. Justice must not only be done, but must also manifestly appear to have been done. Any process which creates a reasonable perception of exclusion or pre- determination undermines institutional credibility and renders the resultant decision vulnerable in judicial review. 15. Equally significant is the challenge mounted against the appellate order dated 29.04.2024. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded that though the appeal was listed on the said date, her counsel, owing to unavoidable personal difficulty, had moved a petition seeking adjournment of the matter. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite such request, the appeal was dismissed without affording effective hearing and that the outcome of the proceeding remained unknown to her until communication of the impugned order through registered post at a later stage. Even assuming that the Appellate Authority possessed the discretion to refuse adjournment and proceed with the matter, the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 13 exercise of such discretion was expected to be reflected through cogent reasons demonstrating conscious application of mind. 16. An appellate forum exercising statutory jurisdiction is not expected to dispose of matters in a mechanical or perfunctory manner, particularly where the adjudication carries serious civil consequences including demolition and deprivation of use of property. The right of appeal, once conferred by statute, cannot be rendered illusory by denial of effective hearing. Procedural fairness remains the heartbeat of every judicial and quasi-judicial process. 17. This Court is conscious of the emphatic submissions advanced on behalf of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and the private Opposite Party that the disputed portion forms part of a road used for ingress and egress and that the Petitioner has allegedly raised unauthorized construction over land meant for common use. There can indeed be no quarrel with the proposition that encroachments over public roads, common passages or civic utility areas deserve to be dealt with firmly in accordance with law. Urban planning statutes are enacted not merely for regulation of construction activities but also for preservation of planned civic infrastructure and collective public convenience. 18. Unauthorized occupation over access roads has cascading consequences upon urban mobility, civic administration and rights of adjoining landholders. Nevertheless, the importance of the object sought to be achieved cannot dilute the obligation of statutory authorities to adhere scrupulously to lawful procedure. The State and its instrumentalities are Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 14 expected to act as model litigants and fair administrators. Even where the allegations against a citizen may appear substantial, coercive action must stand the test of legality, procedural propriety and fairness. Constitutional governance does not permit arbitrary shortcuts even in pursuit of otherwise legitimate objectives. 19. The overall effect of the circumstances noticed hereinabove, namely, the discrepancy between the property described in the initiation notice and the property ultimately forming subject matter of adjudication, the unresolved grievance regarding denial of effective participation during the demarcation process, and the apparent absence of meaningful consideration of the Petitioner’s request for adjournment at the appellate stage, persuades this Court to hold that the decision-making process suffers from procedural infirmities which go to the root of the matter. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily concerned not merely with the correctness of the decision but with the fairness of the decision-making process. Where the procedure adopted by an authority creates legitimate doubt regarding adherence to principles of natural justice, constitutional courts would be justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. 20. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned appellate order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Appeal No.52 of 2023 cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. The matter is therefore remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication. The Appellate Authority shall provide adequate and effective opportunity Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-May-2026 18:56:53 Signature Not Verified Page 15 of hearing to all concerned parties, permit them to produce relevant records and materials in support of their respective claims, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. In the event the authority considers fresh demarcation or field verification necessary, the same shall be conducted upon prior notice to all affected parties and by ensuring their meaningful participation throughout the process. The entire exercise shall preferably be concluded within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order 21. It is clarified that this Court has consciously refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims relating to title, possession, nature of the disputed land or existence of any public road, and all such issues are left open for independent adjudication by the competent authority in accordance with law. 22. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/-