Orissa High Court
Alok Naik @ Bhuban vs State Of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Parties on 12 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13502 of 2015
Alok Naik @ Bhuban ..... Petitioner
Mohan Naik Mr. Suryakanta Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
.....
State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Parties Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 12.09.2025
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has challenged the non-consideration of application for exchange of land of equal extent concerning Encroachment Case No.4-926/2024 submitted upon receipt of notice in the said case in Form - 'KA' & Notice of eviction issued in FORM -'KHA' under Orissa Prevention of Land Act, 1972 concerning alleged encroachment of Plot No. 817 under Khata No. 188 of an area of Ac.0.015 (660 sq.fls) as the said land is abutting to Sthitiban land of Plot No.4868/7413 under Khata No. 1458/1988 and the alleged encroached land is under occupation of the petitioner's family since 1951. Signature Not Verified3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK issue presented in the Writ Petition is squarely covered Reason: Authentication Page 1 of 4. Location: OHC Date: 15-Sep-2025 17:47:17 by the judgment dated 21.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.A. No.506 of 2016 (Jasobant Parida vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) wherein this Court has held that the order passed by the Revenue Authority is without jurisdiction since the area falls under the urban area and OPP Act shall be applicable to the present Petitioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"23. If very initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, in view of the insertion of "Municipality" to the definition of "Public Premises" under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act. As such, the Estate Officer notified by the State Government under Section 3 of the OPP Act, 1972 has got only jurisdiction to issue such notice and not the Tahasildar under the OPLE Act.
24. In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Nardin, (1996) 4 SCC 178:
AIR 1996 SC 1819, the apex Court held that a decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
25. Therefore, if a proceeding initiated under the OPLE Act, 1972 by issuing notice of eviction by the Tahasildar having no jurisdiction, any order passed by him is nullity in the eye of law and any consequential steps taken under the said Act by the respective authorities also cannot be sustained as they Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Page 2 of 4.Location: OHC Date: 15-Sep-2025 17:47:17
have no jurisdiction, thereby such orders are nullity in the eye of law
26. Under the OPP Act, the Estate Officer gets jurisdiction under Section 4(1) only where the premises are Public Premises. Section 2(f) of the OPP Act has defined Public Premises. In order that a premises would be Public Premises, if it is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council or Notified Area Council. By way of amendment to the definition of "Public Premises" under Section 2
(f) "Municipality" has been incorporated by way of gazette notification issued on 03.01.2011 that the municipal area comes under the definition of "Public Premises". Therefore, Kamakhyanagar Notified Area Council, having come under the definition of Public Premises under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act, the action for eviction can only be taken by the competent authority under Section 4 (1) of the OPP Act, i.e., by the Estate Officer and not by the Tahasildar.
27. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by misinterpreting the provisions of law, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant by conforming the order of eviction passed by the Tahasildar and affirmed by appellate authority and re-affirmed by the revisional authority under Sections 12 and 12 (2) of the OPLE Act respectively. As a consequence thereof, the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge Signature Not Verified in W.P.(C) No. 24422 of 2013 cannot be Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 4. Location: OHC Date: 15-Sep-2025 17:47:17
sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed."
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner is not a homestead-less person and failed to prove any documentary evidence to prove his possession over the suit land in question. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has encroached the Government land in question for residential purpose.
5. Learned counsel for the State further contends that the kissam of the land occupied by the Petitioner is prima facie objectionable in nature and he is liable to pay the assessment fee and penalty under Section 4 & 6 of the OPLE Act, 1972 for unauthorized occupation of the case land for the year 2011-12.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the judgment passed in the case of Jasobant Parida (supra), this Court disposes of this Writ Petition setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Kalahandi, in Encroachment Case No.4-926/2024.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Judge Gitanjali Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4. Location: OHC Date: 15-Sep-2025 17:47:17