Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27300 (ORI)

Arnapurna Sahoo v. State of Odisha

2026-01-22

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-mentioned Writ Petitions and the CONTCs, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No.23059 of 2023 is treated as the leading case. 2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, contending that the same has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions arising out of the same subject matter. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner and his forefathers have been in occupation of a piece of Government land measuring 95 ft. × 80 ft., appertaining to Plot No. 790 and Plot No. 705 of Mouza Baramunda, over which an asbestos house has been constructed and the remaining portion has been enclosed by fencing. (ii) Opposite Party No. 3 initiated O.P.P. Case No. 78 of 1986 against the predecessors of the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised occupation of Government land. (iii) In response to the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, the predecessor of the petitioner submitted a detailed show-cause reply, inter alia contending that he was not an unauthorised occupant and that he had been in possession of the case land since the time of his ancestors, thereby claiming to have perfected title by way of adverse possession. (iv) It is further the case of the petitioner that during the year 1957–1958, a Waste Land Case being W.L. Case No. 21 of 1957–58 was initiated for settlement of Government land measuring Ac. 8.90 decimals out of Plot No. 899 under Khata No. 3 of Mouza Baramunda in the name of the petitioner’s uncle, namely Alekha Sahoo, and others, wherein an Istahar was issued inviting public objections for settlement of the land. (v) Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was called upon to file an application for settlement of the land in his favour, as the predecessor of the petitioner had lost his properties due to acquisition of land for establishment of the Odisha Agriculture University. (v) Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was called upon to file an application for settlement of the land in his favour, as the predecessor of the petitioner had lost his properties due to acquisition of land for establishment of the Odisha Agriculture University. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has no other dwelling house except the house standing over the case land. (vi) During the settlement operation, the name of the petitioner was recorded as an encroacher in the remarks column of the record-of-rights. It is further stated that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has been assessing holding tax in respect of the case land in the name of the petitioner since 1977–1978. (vii) Opposite Party No. 2, in the said proceeding, instead of dropping the case, recorded a finding that the petitioner had not taken steps to get his right, title and interest declared by a competent civil court and, ultimately, passed an order of eviction vide order dated 07.04.1988 in O.P.P. Case No. 79/86 (L). (viii) Challenging the said order dated 07.04.1988, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 157 of 1988 before Opposite Party No. 3. However, Opposite Party No. 3, without adjudicating upon the plea of adverse possession, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of thirteen days and declined to condone the said delay. (ix) Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 209 of 1988 before the court of the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar, seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and permanent injunction against the opposite parties. (x) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.1988, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1901 of 1988, wherein this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits. (xi) Upon remand, Opposite Party No. 3 passed an order dated 31.03.1989 rejecting the appeal on merits, inter alia holding that the plea of adverse possession could be adjudicated only by a competent civil court. (xii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989. (xi) Upon remand, Opposite Party No. 3 passed an order dated 31.03.1989 rejecting the appeal on merits, inter alia holding that the plea of adverse possession could be adjudicated only by a competent civil court. (xii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989. (xiii) This Court remanded the matter to Opposite Party No. 2, holding that it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to decide the plea of adverse possession and that if possession for more than the statutory period of thirty years was established, the proceeding could not continue. Consequently, the orders passed by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were quashed. (xiv) In the title suit, the learned Civil Judge partly decreed the suit, taking note of the long possession of the petitioner and directing compliance with the judgment passed in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989. (xv) As the matter remained unattended, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 5161 of 2002, which was disposed of on 19.07.2002 directing Opposite Party No. 3 to dispose of the matter within one month. (xvi) Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No. 2 issued a fresh notice under Section 4(1) in respect of Plot No. 790, but ultimately passed an eviction order in respect of Plot Nos. 225(P) and 225/2455(P) measuring Ac. 0.244 decimals under Khata No. 855 (G.A.) of Mouza Baramunda. (xvii) This Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002, by judgment dated 24.04.2019, set aside the eviction order on the ground of discrepancy in area and remanded the matter with a direction to maintain status quo. (xviii) Opposite Party No. 2 again passed an eviction order dated 21.10.2021. (xix) Alleging violation of the status quo order and demolition during the Covid period, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7860 of 2021 and initiated contempt proceedings. (xx) The appellate authority, by order dated 12.04.2023 in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, affirmed the eviction holding the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant and rejecting the plea of adverse possession. (xxi) Aggrieved by the impugned appellate order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021 affirming the order of eviction, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (xxi) Aggrieved by the impugned appellate order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021 affirming the order of eviction, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the authorities, namely Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, had failed to discuss the evidence adduced by the petitioner with regard to acquisition of title by way of adverse possession. It was submitted that this Court, while earlier dealing with the matter, had elaborately discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was in long-standing possession over the suit land. According to the petitioner, in view of the said order passed by this Court, the authorities were required to take into consideration the evidence relating to long- standing possession. On this ground, it was contended that the impugned orders passed by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were liable to be set aside. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 had placed reliance upon a report submitted by their own department, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner was in possession of an area measuring 51 ft. x 80 ft. from Sabik Plot No. 790(P), corresponding to Hal Plot Nos. 224, 225(P) and 225/2455(P). It was submitted that the said land had subsequently been taken over by the National Highways Authority of India and utilised for construction of National Highway-16. It was further submitted that the order passed by Opposite Party No. 2 was based on the said report submitted by the concerned Under Secretary of the department and that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate in or object to the said report. On this ground, it was contended that the order passed by Opposite Party No. 2 was not sustainable. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 had proceeded on the assumption that, in order to establish title by way of adverse possession, the person in possession must produce documentary evidence of title over the property. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 had proceeded on the assumption that, in order to establish title by way of adverse possession, the person in possession must produce documentary evidence of title over the property. It was submitted that acquisition of title by adverse possession is distinct from true title over the land and does not rest upon documentary title. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the authorities below had decided the matter without taking into account the evidence adduced during the proceedings, as the records of the case were not available at the relevant time and were subsequently reconstituted. It was submitted that, on this account, the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not considered by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. (v) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision relied upon by Opposite Party No. 3 had no application to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 3 failed to appreciate the principle of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. According to the petitioner, there were materials on record to indicate that the petitioner had been in occupation of the land in question through his ancestors since the year 1926 and that such long-standing possession had been recognised by the Municipal as well as the Revenue authorities. It was submitted that the findings were recorded without considering such materials and documents. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the authorities proceeded on the premise that since the disputed property stood recorded in the name of the General Administration Department, there could be no question of acquisition of title by way of adverse possession. (vii) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was a landless person and, on that basis, was entitled to seek settlement of the land under the provisions of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act. (viii) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 did not give due weight to the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989, decided on 15.07.1989, wherein it was observed that if the petitioner was found to be in possession of the land for more than the statutory period of thirty years, the proceeding could not continue. 2 and 3 did not give due weight to the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989, decided on 15.07.1989, wherein it was observed that if the petitioner was found to be in possession of the land for more than the statutory period of thirty years, the proceeding could not continue. It was submitted that this aspect had not been considered by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. III.SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions: (i) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Opposite Party No. 3 had not acted in violation of the rule of law and had discharged his official and quasi-judicial functions in accordance with the provisions of law. It was submitted that, so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the settled position of law is that no right can accrue by way of adverse possession in respect of property dedicated to public use. (ii) It was further submitted that the claim of the petitioner regarding right, title and interest over Government land by way of adverse possession was not maintainable. According to the opposite parties, the General Administration Department had already initiated encroachment proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants and the final order under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 had been passed in accordance with law and after following due process. (iii) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Mouza Baramunda came under the control of the General Administration and Public Grievance Department with effect from 16.11.1968 and that the suit land, namely Plot No. 790, stood recorded as Government land under Anabadi Khata No. 345 as per the Sabik settlement record-of-rights finally published during the years 1961–62. It was further submitted that the Hal Settlement record-of-rights in respect of Mouza Baramunda was finally published on 25.10.1988. (iv) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that for unauthorised occupation of Government land, O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) was initiated before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 in respect of an area measuring Ac. 0.205 decimals pertaining to Plot Nos. 224 (part), 225 (part) and 2455 (part). 0.205 decimals pertaining to Plot Nos. 224 (part), 225 (part) and 2455 (part). It was submitted that, pursuant thereto, the Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. (v) It was further submitted that a waste land lease case bearing No. 21 of 1957–58 had been initiated in the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, however, the General Administration Department had no information regarding the outcome of the said proceeding. It was submitted that the petitioner had not averred that the land stood settled in his name. (vi) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the holding tax receipts issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation do not constitute documents of title in the eye of law and do not create any right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that such documents have no relevance for the purpose of the present case. (vii) It was further submitted that the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, by letter No. 28309/R dated 27.06.1989, had clarified that unauthorised occupation of Government land by private individuals should not be recorded in the record-of-rights during settlement operations and that any such recording made earlier was required to be disregarded. (viii) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Title Suit No. 209 of 1988, filed by Rajendra Sahoo against the State of Odisha and another, had been disposed of by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar by judgment dated 01.01.1993. It was submitted that the suit had been instituted seeking a declaration that the orders passed in O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) and O.P.P. Appeal No. 157 of 1988 were null and void, along with a declaration of title over the suit land and a permanent injunction against the defendant State. It was further submitted that the suit was partly decreed with a direction to comply with the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989 and to dispose of O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) afresh by issuing notice and considering the claim of the plaintiff. (ix) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Rajendra Sahoo had approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989 claiming acquisition of right by way of adverse possession and seeking quashing of the eviction proceedings initiated against him. (ix) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Rajendra Sahoo had approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989 claiming acquisition of right by way of adverse possession and seeking quashing of the eviction proceedings initiated against him. It was submitted that this Court, by order dated 15.07.1989, disposed of the matter by quashing the orders passed in O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) and O.P.P. Appeal No. 157 of 1988 and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. (x) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that during the pendency of O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) before the Estate Officer, the petitioner had approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 5161 of 2002 seeking implementation of the orders passed in O.J.C. No. 1825 of 1989. It was submitted that O.J.C. No. 5161 of 2002 was disposed of by this Court on 19.07.2002 with a direction to dispose of O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) within a period of one month. (xi) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2488 of 2002 seeking quashing of the orders dated 31.05.2002 passed by the Estate Officer in O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) and the order dated 08.08.2002 passed by the appellate authority, namely the Director of Estates, in Appeal Case No. 58 of 2002 (L). It was submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.04.2019 by setting aside the aforesaid orders and directing the parties to appear before the Estate Officer for fresh adjudication. (xii) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the Estate Officer, after following due process of law and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, disposed of the proceeding on 21.10.2021 by passing an order holding that the petitioner had not produced any concrete or authenticated document in support of his ownership over the case land and that, in the absence of material evidencing such claim, the land was a public premises and the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The Estate Officer, accordingly, directed issuance of notice under Section 5(1) of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 requiring the petitioner to vacate the case land within the stipulated period and thereafter passed the eviction order under the said provision. The Estate Officer, accordingly, directed issuance of notice under Section 5(1) of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 requiring the petitioner to vacate the case land within the stipulated period and thereafter passed the eviction order under the said provision. (xiii) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that after disposal of O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L), the aggrieved party preferred Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 before the Director of Estates challenging the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Estate Officer. It was submitted that the said appeal was dismissed by the Director of Estates by order dated 12.04.2023 after following due process of law by passing a reasoned order. (xiv) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that after disposal of O.P.P. Case No. 79 of 1986 (L) and Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, the unauthorised structures standing over the Government land were demolished through the Central Enforcement Monitoring Committee. It was submitted that the eviction and demolition were undertaken in public interest in connection with the ISBT project at Mouza Baramunda, Bhubaneswar. (xv) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 5 had not acted in violation of any order passed by this Court. It was submitted that due procedure had been followed in the disposal of the O.P.P. Case as well as the appeal and that sufficient opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the affected parties. It was further submitted that the unauthorised structures were demolished by following the prescribed procedure and in larger public interest. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The present Writ Petition assails the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, whereby the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 has been affirmed. 8. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned appellate order suffers from such procedural impropriety, perversity or patent illegality as would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. 8. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned appellate order suffers from such procedural impropriety, perversity or patent illegality as would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and discretionary in nature and is not intended to operate as a court of appeal over orders passed by statutory authorities, particularly in matters involving disputed questions of fact and long-standing claims of title. 10. The petitioners’ challenge is primarily founded on the contention that the statutory authorities failed to properly adjudicate the plea of acquisition of title by way of adverse possession, despite repeated remand orders passed by this Court in earlier proceedings. 11. There can be no dispute regarding the proposition that earlier orders of this Court required the authorities to examine the plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioner. However, such directions were procedural in nature, mandating consideration of the plea, and did not amount to any declaration of right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner. 12. From the materials on record, it is evident that the Estate Officer as well as the appellate authority have adverted to the petitioner’s claim of adverse possession and have rejected the same, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question stands recorded as Government land and that no documentary or legally acceptable material was produced to establish acquisition of title. The appellate authority has relied upon the prevailing legal position that acquisition of title by way of adverse possession over Government land, particularly land required for public purpose, cannot be readily accepted. Such an approach does not disclose any perversity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 13. Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge in Title Suit No. 209 of 1988. A perusal of the said judgment does not disclose any declaration of title in favour of the petitioner and merely reflects that the suit was partly decreed with a direction to comply with the earlier orders of this Court. 13. Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge in Title Suit No. 209 of 1988. A perusal of the said judgment does not disclose any declaration of title in favour of the petitioner and merely reflects that the suit was partly decreed with a direction to comply with the earlier orders of this Court. In the absence of a declaratory decree recognising title in favour of the petitioner, no enforceable right of ownership is shown to exist so as to warrant protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court is conscious of the fact that the matter has been remanded on more than one occasion and that the petitioner has repeatedly approached this Court alleging non-compliance with earlier directions. While the record does reflect procedural delays over the years, it cannot be overlooked that the statutory authorities have ultimately adjudicated the matter and passed orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 15. This Court further notes that the Supreme Court has consistently held that encroachment upon public land cannot be regularised merely because unauthorised occupation has been subsisting for many years and that the State is under an obligation to protect and utilise public land for public purposes. Reference may be made, in this regard, to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab , (2011) 11 SCC 396 . 16. In view of the subsequent developments, including demolition of unauthorised structures and the stated public purpose for which the land is required, this Court is of the considered view that remanding the matter once again would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong an already protracted dispute. 17. Courts exercising writ jurisdiction ordinarily refrain from interfering in matters where public projects have intervened and where the relief sought would have the effect of unsettling completed or ongoing public works, unless the action complained of is patently without jurisdiction or actuated by mala fides, neither of which has been established in the present case. V. CONCLUSION: 18. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. V. CONCLUSION: 18. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or such patent illegality in the impugned order as would warrant interference by this Court. 19. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the petitioner’s claim of title on merits, and dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing such remedies, if any, as may be available in accordance with law. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed 21. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions and the conclusions recorded hereinabove, no further orders are required to be passed in CONTC No.1165 of 2022 and CONTC Nos.2473 and 3111 of 2023, which are, accordingly, disposed of. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the above-mentioned petitions stands vacated.