Orissa High Court
Samir Kumar Mohanta vs (1) Executive Engineer on 19 August, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27738 OF 2011
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Samir Kumar Mohanta,
S/o-Late Priya Mohanta,
At-Bad Dakoi, P.S.-Baripada Sadar,
Dist-Mayurbhanj ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
(1) Executive Engineer, Betnoti Canal Division,
Laxmiposi, Dist-Mayurbhanj
(2) Sub-Collector and Estate Officer,
Baripada, At/PO/P.S.-Baripada,
Dist-Mayurbhanj
(3) Collector, Mayurbhanj
Baripada, At/PO/PS: Baripada,
Dist-Mayurbhanj ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 19.08.2025
-----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the order
dated 5th January, 2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the Sub-Collector
and Estate Officer, Baripada in O.P.P. (EUO) Case No.2 of 2009
W.P.(C) No.27738 OF 2011
directing eviction of the Petitioner from the land in question. The
Petitioner also assails the order dated 26th September, 2011
(Annexure-2) passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in OPP (EUO)
Appeal Case No.1 of 2011 confirming the order under Annexure-1.
3. Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
Plot Nos.349 to an extent of Ac.2.30 and 350 to an extent of
Ac. 0.44 of Khata No.53 and Plot Nos.348 to an extent of Ac.0.88
and 351 to an extent of Ac.2.86 of Khata No.30 of Mouza-Bada
Dakoi under Betnoti Tahasil in the District of Mayurbhanj (for
brevity 'the case land') stood recorded in the name of the Petitioner
and his family members. The land was acquired under section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the L.A. Act') for
construction of 'Sriramdihi' minor canal off-taking from its parent
channel Betnoti Branch Canal from RD-7920 meter. Accordingly,
the land acquisition proceeding was initiated. But the Petitioner was
not paid adequate compensation for the trees grown over Plot
Nos.348 and 349 out of the case land for which L.A. Misc. Case
No.48 of 2008 under Section 18 of the Act was pending at the
relevant time. Hence, the Petitioner was waiting for enhancement of
compensation for the standing trees. As such, he was not in a
position to vacate the case land. At that juncture, alleging
unauthorized occupation of the public premises by the Petitioner,
the Sub-Collector and Estate Officer, Baripada (Opposite Party
No.2) initiated O.P.P. (EUO) Case No.2 of 2009 under Sections 3
and 4 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the OPP Act') on his file and
directed eviction of the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-1.
Assailing the said order, the Petitioner preferred OPP (EUO) Appeal
No.1 of 2011 under Section 9 of the OPP Act. The Collector,
Mayurbhanj without considering the matter in its proper prospective
confirmed the order under Annexure-1 vide order under Annexure-
2. Hence, the writ application has been filed assailing the orders
under Annexures-1 and 2.
4. Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that although the Petitioner and his family members were
in possession over the case land but notice of eviction was issued
in respect of the Petitioner only.
4.1. The case land does not fall within the definition of 'Public
Premises' as defined under Section 2(f) of the OPP Act. The
Petitioner has also not been paid compensation for the valuable
trees grown over the case land. Thus, direction for eviction of the
Petitioner from the case land without payment of due
compensation is illegal and arbitrary. These material aspects were
not taken into consideration by either of the Authorities under the
OPP Act. Hence, the Petitioner finding no alternative has filed the
writ petition.
5 Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
that the trees were grown by the Petitioner after the notification for
acquisition of case land was published. Thus, he is not entitled any
compensation for the same.
5.1. On verification of the record and upon hearing learned
counsel for the parties, the Estate Officer came to a conclusion that
the trees were grown by the Petitioner subsequent to the
Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Since the
Petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the land after Notification
under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was published, he is liable to be
evicted and rightly the Authorities under the OPP Act passed the
order of eviction. As such, the impugned orders under Annexure-1
and 2 warrant no interference.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials
on record.
7. Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'public premises'. It reads
as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
2 [(f) " Public premises means any preemies situated
within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council or Notified
Area Council constituted under the Odisha Municipal Act,
1950 and -
(i) belonging to or taken on lease by the State
Government or any Company or by the Board; or
(ii) requisitioned by the State Government."
8. There is no dispute to the fact that the case land situates
within a Municipal area. After the Notification under section 4(1) of
the L.A. Act, the case land vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. Thus, for all purposes, the case land became public
premises within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the OPP Act. Notice
was issued to the Petitioner and he participated in the proceeding. At
no stage in the proceeding under the OPP Act, the Petitioner had
raised objection that the notice was not served on other co-
sharers/co-owners of the case land. There is also no material on
record to come to a conclusion that the Petitioner along with his co-
shares were recorded owners and were in possession of the case
land at the time of initiation and continuance of the proceeding
under the OPP Act. This being a factual issue should have been
raised before the authorities under the OPP Act. Fact remains that
the Petitioner is in occupation of the public premises and proceeding
under sections 3 and 4 of the OPP Act was initiated against him. He
participated in the proceeding by filing objection and the impugned
order under Annexure-1 was passed by the Estate Officer. Assailing
the same, the Petitioner also filed OPP (EUO) Appeal Case No.1 of
2011, which was dismissed on merit providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned. The case land has been acquired by
the Government and became public premises after acquisition. The
Petitioner had also received compensation for acquisition of the case
land. Thus, the proceedings under the OPP Act before the
Authorities were maintainable. Non-receipt of adequate
compensation for acquisition of the case land cannot be a ground to
occupy the property already acquired for public purpose.
9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order either
under Annexure-1 and/or under Annexure-2.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands
dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
11. Interim order passed dated 21.12.2011 passed in I.A.
No.15934 of 2011 stands vacated.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:04:44
OrissaW.P.(C)
High Court,
No.Cuttack,
27738 OF 201
Dated 19th August, 2025/Himansu
