p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 Along with Batch of Writ Petitions (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). (W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014) Kabiraj Jena …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Orissa and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. D.K. Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-11.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 (W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 Along with W.P.(C) Nos.20746, 21504, 23453, 23454, 23455 and 23456 of 2014) Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 2 2. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has assailed order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No.4 of 2012 filed by the Opposite Party No.5/ VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla reversing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No.31 of 2012 and confirming the order of eviction dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.4/ Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No.7/4-21/2011 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: (i) The factual backdrop, in brief, is that the disputed land, recorded under Khata No. 387 comprising various plots, stands vested in the Irrigation Department of the Government. It is averred that the Petitioner and several similarly situated persons have been residing over the said land for more than six decades, having constructed their residential houses thereon. The genesis of their occupation traces back to the period of construction of the Hirakud Dam Project, when the forefathers of the present occupants migrated to Burla for engagement in the dam construction activities and, having settled thereafter, continued to occupy the said land on a long-standing and uninterrupted basis. (ii) It is further stated that, over the years, they have secured electricity connections to their respective houses, paid holding tax and rent to the Burla Notified Area Council (NAC), and have Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 3 also availed domestic water supply connections in due course of time, thereby evidencing possession recognized by public authorities. The Petitioners assert that they have no alternative site for residence, and their occupation, being rooted in historical and socio-economic necessity, merits sympathetic and lawful consideration. (iii) While the matter thus rested, a Public Interest Litigation came to be instituted before this Court by certain students of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, registered as W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, wherein a prayer was made seeking appropriate directions for removal of unauthorised encroachers and for prevention of further trespass over the lands appertaining to the said Medical College and Hospital campus. Upon consideration of the issues raised and the materials placed on record, this Court, by order dated 05.12.2011, was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition with the following direction: “The concerned authorities, including the Estate Officer of the property, need not await completion of the process of recording the land in the name of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. They are directed to initiate proceedings against the unauthorised occupants under the relevant provisions of law.” Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the administrative machinery was set in motion for initiation of proceedings against the alleged encroachers occupying Government land within and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 4 around the precincts of the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital campus. (iv) Pursuant to the directions rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, the Opposite Party No. 4 – Tahasildar, Sambalpur, invoking his powers under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, initiated Urban Encroachment Proceeding No. 714-92/2011 against the present Petitioners. It is alleged that the said proceeding culminated, in undue haste and without the observance of the minimum procedural safeguards, in an order of eviction dated 06.01.2012, whereby the Petitioners were directed to vacate the land in question. The Petitioners contend that the said order was passed per incuriam, in a mechanical fashion, and in disregard of the long-standing de facto possession and civic regularisation of their occupation, thus rendering the proceeding tainted with arbitrariness and jurisdictional infirmity. (v) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction order, the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1394 of 2012, challenging the same inter alia on the grounds of ultra vires exercise of authority and violation of the audi alteram partem rule. This Court, while refraining from adjudicating on the merits, was pleased, vide order dated 06.03.2012, to dispose of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the Petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Act. Availing such liberty, the Petitioners preferred OPLE Appeal No. 31 of 2012 before the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 5 Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur, assailing the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional competence of the Tahasildar’s order dated 06.01.2012 (vi) The Appellate Authority, upon analogously hearing twenty- two appeals arising from identical eviction orders passed by the Tahasildar in relation to different occupants within the same geographical cluster, and upon an exhaustive scrutiny of the record and the legal provisions governing the field, delivered a reasoned adjudication dated 20.07.2012, wherein it was categorically held as follows: “In view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate encroachment cases pertaining to Burla town during the pendency of settlement operations. Hence, the orders dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned Tahasildar, Sambalpur in the respective Encroachment Cases are hereby set aside.” The Sub-Collector thus conclusively determined that the impugned eviction orders were nullities in law, having been rendered by an authority bereft of jurisdiction ratione materiae owing to the pendency of the settlement operation in the concerned urban unit. (vii) Notwithstanding the jurisdictional bar and absence of proprietary nexus, the Opposite Party No. 5 – V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, purporting to act as an interested institution, though admittedly neither the recorded owner nor the beneficiary of the land in dispute, preferred a revision before the Opposite Party No. 2 – Collector, Sambalpur, registered as Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 6 OPLE Revision Case No. 4 of 2012, seeking reversal of the well- reasoned appellate order dated 20.07.2012. (viii) The Revisional Authority – Collector, Sambalpur, vide order dated 26.09.2014, allowed the said revision and thereby set aside the appellate findings, without adverting to or analytically engaging with the jurisdictional observations recorded by the Sub-Collector. The Revisional Authority, instead of conducting an independent appraisal of the factual and legal issues, appears to have been solely guided by the general directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, which were of a facilitative and administrative character, rather than a mandate for indiscriminate eviction. Consequently, the revisional order, being non-speaking, perverse, and reflective of extraneous influence, stands impugned in the present proceeding as having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction, and in derogation of the settled principles governing quasi-judicial adjudication under the OPLE Act. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The admitted position, as emerging from the counter affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur, unequivocally establishes that the subject land forms part of the estate vested in the Irrigation Department, and not in the Revenue Department. Once such vesting is acknowledged, the Tahasildar, acting as a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 7 revenue authority, stands denuded of jurisdiction ratione materiae to invoke the machinery of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 .The statutory precondition for the assumption of jurisdiction under the OPLE framework is that the land must fall within the administrative control of the Revenue Department, or be placed under its custody by a competent requisitioning authority. Absent such requisition from the Irrigation Department, the initiation of Urban Encroachment Case No. 714-92/2011 constitutes an act coram non judice — one rendered by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction. (ii) The principle of competence, which undergirds all administrative and quasi-judicial action, posits that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of legality. As consistently held in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan1, and reaffirmed in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2, an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, incapable of being sanctified by consent, acquiescence, or even appellate affirmation. Jurisdiction must be conferred de jure, not de facto; it cannot be usurped through administrative zeal. Hence, the eviction order dated 06.01.2012, being born of jurisdictional incompetence, is void ab initio and liable to be effaced ex debito justitiae. (iii) The material on record further discloses that the Petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have remained in open, continuous, and uncontested possession of the land for more 1 AIR 1954 SC 340, 2 (1988) 2 SCC 602 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 8 than five decades. Their possession is not clandestine but institutionally recognized — evidenced by the issuance of electricity and water connections, assessment of holding tax by the Burla Notified Area Council, and unbroken civic engagement with municipal authorities. Such possession, though originating in informal occupation, has over time attained the complexion of de facto settlement protected by the doctrines of legitimate expectation and administrative acquiescence. (iv) The contemporaneous correspondence of the Collector, Sambalpur, dated 15.02.2012, addressed to the State Government, assumes critical evidentiary value. The Collector, acknowledging both the temporal longevity and civic legitimacy of such possession, recommended a policy accommodation in lieu of coercive displacement. The tenor of the letter, which emphasizes that the occupied land falls outside the operational campus of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, and that indiscriminate eviction would precipitate “massive resistance and law and order problems,” evinces an administrative recognition of settled expectations. Such acknowledgment triggers the equitable doctrine of estoppel against arbitrary State action, as elaborated in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies3, and Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India4,.It follows that, in the light of prolonged acquiescence and governmental tolerance, the Petitioners’ possession cannot 3 AIR 1968 SC 718 4 (1992) 4 SCC 477 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 9 be trivialized as “encroachment” in the pejorative sense contemplated under Section 7 of the OPLE Act, but must instead be treated as long-standing occupation carrying equitable and administrative weight. (v) Furthermore, the Opposite Party No. 5 – V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, which neither holds the title nor demonstrates any legal interest in the land beyond moral indignation, cannot be characterized as a “person aggrieved” competent to maintain a revision under the OPLE Act. The locus standi doctrine, rooted in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India5, , and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar6 predicates that the right to invoke supervisory jurisdiction arises only where there exists a direct and personal injury to a legally protected interest. In the present case, the revision was pursued by an entity extraneous to the proprietary dispute, rendering the revisional order dated 26.09.2014 an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. The Collector, as revisional authority, acted ultra vires by entertaining a revision filed by a stranger to the proceedings, thereby violating the principle that jurisdictional competence cannot be expanded by third-party invocation. (vi) Moreover, the Collector’s reasoning reflects a fundamental misapprehension of the binding nature of this Court’s earlier order in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011. That order was directive and supervisory, not self-executory; it required initiation of lawful 5 1981 Supp SCC 87 6 (1976) 1 SCC 671 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 10 proceedings by competent authorities, not mechanical eviction irrespective of jurisdiction or ownership. The Revisional Authority, in treating that judicial observation as a carte blanche for eviction, substituted judicial direction for administrative discretion — a course that offends the constitutional principle of institutional fidelity to statutory limits. (vii) Viewed holistically, the impugned revisional order (Annexure-14) suffers from multiple vices of illegality — lack of jurisdiction, misapplication of judicial directions, failure of natural justice, and disregard of equitable considerations that have crystallized over decades of civic integration. The order is, therefore, ultra vires the parent statute, per incuriam of settled administrative jurisprudence, and arbitrary within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Petitioners’ case, conversely, is anchored in the constitutional ethos of fairness, reasonableness, and human dignity implicit in Article 21, as reiterated in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation7 , which recognizes the right to shelter as an inseparable facet of the right to life. (viii) Consequently, this Court would be justified, in exercise of its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, to quash the impugned revisional order, and to direct the State Government to consider settlement of the land in favour of the Petitioners, consistent with their long-standing possession, 7 (1985) 3 SCC 545 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 11 administrative recognition, and the equitable imperatives of social justice embedded in the constitutional framework. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/ STATE: 5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties/ State earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The factual conspectus, distilled from the pleadings, reveals that the Petitioner’s father, a Class-IV employee under the establishment of V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, was constrained, upon retirement and for want of any official accommodation or private holding within the Burla Notified Area Council, to construct a modest dwelling upon Plot No. 3418 under Khata No. 687, land recorded in the name of the Irrigation Department. The said construction, effected several decades ago, marks the genesis of a continued occupation, now spanning over half a century. It is asserted that such occupation predates the constitution of Burla Township, as well as the establishment of Sambalpur University, V.S.S. Engineering College, and V.S.S. Medical College, thereby evidencing that the Petitioner’s possession is not an instance of recent encroachment but a settled social fact of historical genesis intertwined with the Hirakud Dam Project era migration. (ii) The Petitioner’s contention is fortified by the documentary record, wherein it appears that the land earlier reserved for the Irrigation Department during the construction of the Hirakud Dam was relinquished in favour of the Revenue Department on Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 12 18.04.1987, thereby altering the administrative custody of the said parcel. Consequent thereto, the Collector, Sambalpur, vide notification dated 21.12.1999, addressed the State Government recommending the formulation of a policy framework to regularize long-standing residential occupations of such lands, citing humanitarian and administrative considerations. The tenor of the Collector’s recommendation manifests an early recognition of the principle of equitable regularization—that administrative inertia cannot be allowed to convert bona fide human habitation into criminalized “encroachment.” (iii) Despite this policy inclination, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur, issued a public notice dated 24.11.2011 bearing Letter No. 7181, invoking the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, and directing the purported “encroachers” to vacate within twenty-four hours, failing which forcible eviction would ensue. Pursuant thereto, a notice in Form (Ka) was issued to the Petitioner under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short, OPLE Act). The issuance of such notice, unaccompanied by jurisdictional verification as to departmental ownership or statutory competence, and absent observance of the principles of audi alteram partem, stands prima facie vitiated by procedural impropriety and jurisdictional infirmity. (iv) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1394 of 2012, challenging the eviction notice on the twin grounds of want of jurisdiction and denial of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 13 natural justice. This Court, while refraining from entering upon the merits, by order dated 06.03.2012, held that the impugned order was appealable under the OPLE Act, and accordingly disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appellate authority, with a direction that the pendency of the writ may be cited as a ground for condonation of delay. The interim protection earlier granted on 24.01.2012 stood vacated. This order thus restored the statutory process while preserving the procedural rights of the Petitioner. (v) Consequent thereto, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur, proceeded to pass a final order of eviction dated 06.01.2012 in Encroachment Case No. 714-92/2011, directing removal of the Petitioner’s occupation. The said order, when carried in appeal before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur, culminated in OPLE Appeal No. 31 of 2012, wherein the Appellate Authority, upon a detailed jurisdictional analysis, by order dated 20.07.2012, categorically held that the Tahasildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain encroachment matters concerning Burla town during the subsistence of settlement operations, and accordingly set aside the impugned eviction order. However, the said appellate determination was challenged by the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, before the Collector, Sambalpur, in OPLE Revision Case No. 4 of 2012, despite the admitted fact that the said institution held no proprietary or possessory nexus with the disputed land. The Collector, acting as Revisional Authority, by Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 14 order dated 26.09.2014, reversed the appellate findings and reinstated the eviction order dated 06.01.2012, purportedly relying upon this Court’s directive dated 05.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 25562 of 2011, which was merely administrative in tenor and did not vest blanket authority for eviction irrespective of jurisdictional competence. (vi) In response, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contends that the Collector’s order dated 26.09.2014 is unimpeachable, asserting that the Petitioner’s possession is ipso facto illegal, being unsupported by any legal conveyance, lease, or authorization, and hence no right—statutory or equitable— can be claimed. It is argued that the encroachment proceedings were initiated strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, and that the Tahasildar acted within his executive competence under Section 7 of the OPLE Act. (vii) It is thus urged on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the present writ petition is devoid of merit, the impugned revisional order being a legally sustainable administrative consequence of judicial directives issued by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed, affirming the Collector’s order dated 26.09.2014. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 15 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The following questions emanates for discussion by this Court: a) Whether, on the admitted facts, the Tahasildar possessed jurisdiction to initiate and decide the impugned encroachment proceedings under the OPLE framework during subsisting settlement operations and without a foundational requisition or endorsement from the land- owning Irrigation Department? b) Whether VSS MCH had locus standi to maintain the revision before the Collector against the Petitioners, given the Petitioners’ assertion (and administrative material) that the occupied plots lie outside the presently demarcated medical-college campus and the lack of title/allotment in VSS MCH’s favour for those plots? c) What is the legal ambit and effect of this Court’s PIL order dated 05.12.2011; specifically, whether it can be read as dispensing with jurisdictional predicates, title demarcation, and the statutory architecture of the OPLE/settlement regime? d) Whether the Collector’s revisional order dated 26.09.2014 is liable to interference for jurisdictional error, misdirection in law, and non-consideration of relevant factors; and what consequential orders ought to follow? Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 16 7. The OPLE framework, being a summary remedy presupposes a clear identification of (a) the public land, (b) the competent estate authority of the Government department in whom the land vests, and (c) the jurisdictional facts that the occupant is an unauthorized encroacher thereon. Where settlement operations are ongoing, the law ordinarily channels contests touching identification, description, boundaries and recordal of public lands through the specialized fora/mechanisms, precisely to avoid discordant adjudications and to ensure cadastral integrity. The Sub-Collector, in appeal, correctly recognised that premise and interdicted the Tahasildar’s exercise. 8. The land belongs to the Irrigation Department is not only asserted by the Petitioners but finds affirmation in the Tahasildar’s own counter. In such a situation, the Tahasildar could not, proprio motu, and divorced from the land-owning department’s requisition/authorization, press the OPLE engine to evict decades-old residential occupation—particularly when the administrative record reflects contemporaneous exploration of settlement/regularisation (Collector’s letter dated 15.02.2012) and when the State itself contemplated demarcation/exchange solutions. The requirement that the department in whom the title vests be the prime mover is not a pedantic technicality but a structural safeguard against misdirected proceedings. 9. For clarity, long possession does not ripen into title against the State by mere efflux of time; yet, where the State’s own instrumentalities have permitted a settled residential ecosystem to crystallize over decades—with civic amenities, municipal taxation, and absence of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 17 immediate public-purpose urgency—summary OPLE action must be scrupulously anchored in jurisdictional predicates and preceded by a considered, departmental decision to evict, rather than be propelled solely by a generic exhortation. Hence, the Tahasildar’s assumption of jurisdiction, during settlement operations and sans a foundational requisition from the Irrigation Department, was legally infirm. The Sub-Collector’s contrary conclusion was sound; the Collector’s reversal ignored this jurisdictional bedrock. 10. In so far as the PIL remedy adopted by the students of the Medical College, it may be stated that standing in administrative revision is not a roving passport. The revisional forum is not an agora for all public- spirited entities; it is a statutory avenue for a person aggrieved. On the Petitioners’ case—fortified by the Collector’s own correspondence— the plots in question lie outside the presently situated medical campus. There is no revenue record placed before this Court demonstrating that title to these very parcels stands in the name of VSS MCH or that the State has lawfully allotted/vested such lands in VSS MCH. The PIL order of 05.12.2011 is likewise not a conveyance of title. Absent such vesting, VSS MCH’s grievance is, at best, collateral or institutional, not proprietary. 11. Even assuming arguendo that VSS MCH could articulately voice a public interest, that does not translate into statutory standing to overturn an appellate order that rested on the Tahasildar’s jurisdictional want under the OPLE/settlement scheme. The Collector’s readiness to entertain the revision at VSS MCH’s behest, without first Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 18 ascertaining vesting/title or campus demarcation, betrays a misdirection in law. Hence, VSS MCH failed to establish that it was a person aggrieved qua the particular plots. The revision at its instance was, therefore, not maintainable. 12. Further. a PIL direction to proceed “under the relevant provisions” is an injunction to act lawfully, not a charter to dispense with jurisdictional facts, title demarcation, or statutory safeguards. The Collector appears to have read the PIL order as a mandate to evict first and reason later. That approach inverts the rule of law. Courts have repeatedly cautioned that directions in PILs cannot supplant the statute, and administrative action must remain tethered to the four corners of the enabling law. The phrase “need not wait to get the property recorded in the name of VSS MCH” merely obviated a ministerial delay in mutation where title was otherwise clear; it did not authorize the State to ignore that, here, the land is admittedly of the Irrigation Department and that demarcation/settlement questions subsisted. Hence, the Collector’s reliance on the PIL order as a self- executing warrant for eviction is misplaced. The order neither conferred title on VSS MCH nor diluted the OPLE/settlement architecture. 13. The Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not substitutive. It is ordinarily attracted to correct jurisdictional errors, perversity, or manifest illegality. The Sub-Collector had rested the appellate decision on a threshold jurisdictional bar—settlement operations and Tahasildar’s competence—after hearing a batch of appeals and surveying the field. The Collector, however, set aside that order Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 19 without addressing the jurisdictional bar, without engaging with departmental vesting, and without resolving locus. The reasoning reduces to a reiteration of the PIL order and to generalities about encroachment. That is a classic case of failure to exercise revisional jurisdiction according to law. Hence, The revisional order dated 26.09.2014 is vitiated by non-application of mind to jurisdictional facts, misdirection in law regarding the PIL’s effect, and failure to determine locus/title. It cannot be sustained. 14. The Court is not endorsing a theory of amnesty by long possession. The State retains the plenary authority—consistent with law and policy—to remove encroachments from public land. However, especially when (a) the land-owning department is Irrigation; (b) there is administrative material contemplating settlement/regularization with an alternative allotment plan for VSS MCH; (c) the occupants constitute a long-standing residential cluster with municipal services; and (d) the Tahasildar’s jurisdiction was shaky during settlement operations—the proper course is to reset the process on a lawful footing, not to sanctify a defective eviction. V. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed in part with the following directions: a. The revisional order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No. 4 of 2012 is quashed. Consequentially, the appellate order dated 20.07.2012 passed Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 20 by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No. 31 of 2012 stands restored. b. The foundational eviction order dated 06.01.2012 of the Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No. 7/4-21/2011 (and connected cases analogously situated) is set aside for want of jurisdiction and for failure to adhere to the statutorily intended coordination with the land-owning Irrigation Department during settlement operations. c. It shall be open to the State/Irrigation Department, if so advised, to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law, subject to the following pre-conditions: (a) A speaking determination identifying the precise plots, their vesting in the Irrigation Department, and whether any portion stands lawfully allotted/vested in VSS MCH; (b) Any OPLE action, if warranted, shall be initiated by/at the instance of the competent estate authority of the land-owning department, not merely on a generic reference; (c) If settlement operations subsist or are re-opened, land identification/recordal issues shall be first addressed under the settlement regime; (d) Fresh proceedings shall scrupulously comply with notice, opportunity, and reasoned orders, with due consideration of individual claims, duration of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 Signature Not Verified p. 21 possession, and any policy on regularization/rehabilitation; 16. The competent authority shall consider—and record reasons upon— whether, in light of the Collector’s 15.02.2012 correspondence and any extant Government policy, the Petitioners’ cluster admits of regularization/alternative rehabilitation, particularly if the land is outside the present VSS MCH campus and no immediate public purpose requires eviction. 17. Until the completion of the exercise in Clause (c) and for a period of six months thereafter, the Petitioners shall not be dispossessed except in pursuance of fresh, lawful orders passed after compliance with due process. This protection shall not be construed to create any equitable title. 18. Any future challenge at the revisional stage by VSS MCH shall be entertained only upon prima facie proof that the specific plots in question are vested/allotted to it. Generic institutional interest will not suffice. 19. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the above-mentioned Writ Petitions stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October,2025 CUTTACK