Orissa High Court
Diptimayee Patra & Anr vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. No.4014 of 2025
arising out of
W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024
(An application for recalling of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024)
Diptimayee Patra & Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
Along with associates
(for O.P No.3)
Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Along with associates
(for O.P No.4)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-01.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. I.A. No.4014 of 2025 has been filed by the Opposite Party No.4/
(Rabindra Samanta) for recalling the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
2. Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
Petitioner in this I.A. is the Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.15398
of 2024. He further submitted that the Writ Petition has been disposed
of vide order dated 30.01.2025 at the stage of admission without
issuing notice to the present Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner
(Rabindra Samanta) could not bring the relevant facts to the notice of
this Court at the time of hearing. In such premises, he submitted that
the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2024 may be
recalled and the Petitioner may be heard afresh.
3. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Petitioner and the averments made in the I.A.,
prayer is allowed. Order dated 30.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.15398
of 2024 is recalled and the following judgment/ order is passed.
4. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to
initiate eviction proceedings against Opposite Party No.4 for
unauthorized encroachment on a public road obstructing access to
their property, and to ensure compliance with prior judicial directions
and statutory obligations.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The Petitioners purchased the scheduled properties from their
respective vendors. The Record of Rights (ROR) was published in the
name of Diptimayee Patra and Sarmistha Patra, reflecting 'Stitiban'
status. The Petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the said
lands.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) In 2020, Opposite Party No.4 (Rabindra Samanta) began constructing
temporary sheds/shop rooms on the public road in front of the
Petitioners' property. The entire frontage and access to Petitioners'
land was blocked due to this construction.
(iii) On objection by the Petitioners, Opp. Party No.4 claimed to have
municipal permission for the same. On an RTI application, Petitioners
obtained a letter dated 21.06.2018 from the Executive Officer, Puri
Municipality (Opp. Party No.3), allegedly permitting Opp. Party No.4
to install temporary structures.
(iv) The Petitioners approached this High Court challenging the said
permission. The High Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 directed
Opp. Party No.3 to consider Petitioners' grievance and decide after
granting hearing to both parties.
(v) Pursuant to the directions of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of
2023, the Petitioners appeared before the Executive Officer, Puri
Municipality on 08.01.2024 along with a certified copy of the order.
Thereafter, notice was issued fixing the date of hearing on 19.01.2024,
during which both the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.4 appeared
and it was mutually decided that a joint inspection would be
conducted to verify the allegations of encroachment.
(vi) Accordingly, the Executive Officer directed the Tahasildar, Puri to
carry out a detailed enquiry. Pursuant to this, the Revenue Inspector,
Balukhanda conducted an on-site inspection and submitted a report
through the Tahasildar on 15.03.2024, wherein it was categorically
confirmed that there was unauthorized encroachment upon public
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
land, which was obstructing the Petitioners' access to their respective
plots.
(vii) Opp. Party No.4 filed a separate writ without impleading the
Petitioners. High Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 directed
authorities to consider Opp. Party No.4's grievance regarding
rehabilitation/relocation, and maintain status quo till then. Petitioners
moved Intervention and Recall Applications in that writ, which was
disposed of with directions to the Municipality to proceed per earlier
orders.
(viii) Despite the clear findings of encroachment in the enquiry report and
the binding directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of
2023, no steps have been taken by the Executive Officer, Puri
Municipality to evict Opposite Party No.4 from the encroached public
road.
(ix) The Executive Officer has failed to act in compliance with either the
court's directions or the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Puri,
thereby allowing the illegality to persist unabated. In blatant
disregard of the terms and conditions of the original allotment,
Opposite Party No.4 not only continues to occupy the public road but
has also constructed permanent cemented structures, despite the
original permission, if any, being limited to temporary installations
and having long since lapsed.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The petitioners submitted that their Right to Free Movement and
Passage under Articles 19 and 21 is being violated by the obstruction
of access to their property. The inaction of the authorities violates
Article 14 by treating similarly situated persons differently and
enabling illegal encroachment.
(ii) The Petitioners were not made parties to W.P.(C) No. 5690 of 2024
despite being directly affected, which is against principles of natural
justice. The municipal permission dated 21.06.2018, issued by the
Executive Officer, Puri Municipality, was expressly time-bound, non-
renewable, and restricted to the installation of temporary structures
made of temporary materials, with a condition that public access and
traffic must not be obstructed. However, Opposite Party No.4 has
blatantly violated these conditions by constructing permanent
cemented shop rooms on the public road. This encroachment is
further contradicted by the Municipality's own subsequent order
dated 14.05.2024, which categorically states that, in the interest of
public welfare and to ensure the free flow of traffic, public roads
cannot be allotted for running private businesses, clearly undermining
the continued occupation by Opposite Party No.4.
(iii) The Executive Officer, Puri Municipality has failed to take any action
on the Tahasildar's Enquiry Report dated 15.03.2024, which
unambiguously confirmed the existence of encroachment on public
land obstructing the Petitioners' access. Despite being bound by the
directions of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023 to consider
and dispose of the Petitioners' grievance in accordance with law, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Executive Officer has willfully neglected to comply. This inaction has
resulted in the continued and unlawful occupation of a public road by
Opposite Party No.4, effectively permitting a public nuisance and
facilitating an ongoing illegality in violation of constitutional and
statutory obligations.
(iv) The unauthorized occupation squarely falls within the definition
under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1972. The Municipality's failure to invoke the eviction
mechanism under the 1972 Act is illegal and arbitrary.
(v) The Petitioners seek interim direction restraining renewal of the 2018
allotment letter till disposal of the main writ petition to prevent
further prejudice. Balance of convenience lies with Petitioners who are
facing irreversible damage to their property access and enjoyment.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
(i) The Opposite Parties submit that the permission granted to Opposite
Party No.4 on 21.06.2018 was for temporary sheds on government
land, issued as per norms and subject to conditions. The Executive
Officer has complied with the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.
39022 of 2023 by holding a hearing and ordering a joint inspection.
Further action could not be taken due to the status quo order passed
in W.P.(C) No. 5690 of 2024 regarding Opposite Party No.4's
rehabilitation plea. Hence, the delay is due to judicial restraint, not
administrative inaction.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
8. The core grievance of the Petitioners concerns obstruction of access to
their respective plots by unauthorized structures erected by Opposite
Party No. 4 on the public road abutting their land. The Record of
Rights stands published in the names of Diptimayee Patra and
Sarmistha Patra, reflecting the status of "Stitban" lands, and there is
no dispute regarding the Petitioners' possession thereof.
9. The facts on record reveal that the permission dated 21.06.2018 issued
by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality in favor of Opposite Party
No. 4 was expressly limited in scope: time-bound, non-renewable, and
restricted to the installation of temporary sheds using temporary
materials, with a clear stipulation that public access and traffic must
not be obstructed. However, the Tahasildar's report dated 15.03.2024,
pursuant to a joint inspection, categorically confirms that Opp. Party
No.4 has encroached upon public land and constructed permanent
cemented structures, thereby obstructing the Petitioners' access. This, by
itself, renders the occupation unlawful and in violation of the original
terms of allotment.
10. The Executive Officer, despite being directed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No. 39022 of 2023 to adjudicate the Petitioners' grievance upon
hearing all concerned parties, has failed to initiate action under the
Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1972. Such inaction, despite a confirmed encroachment by the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
competent revenue authorities, amounts to administrative
nonfeasance and subverts the statutory duty of the Municipality to
safeguard public property held in trust for the community.
11. This Court finds that the plea of status quo granted in W.P.(C) No.
5690 of 2024 cannot be invoked to indefinitely shield an illegal
encroachment, particularly when the Petitioners, who are directly
prejudiced by the encroachment, were not impleaded in that
proceeding. A status quo order cannot legalize an otherwise unlawful
act, nor can it override or nullify a prior direction of this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 39022 of 2023, especially when compliance with the latter
has been obstructed under the garb of the former.
12. The right of the Petitioners to unimpeded access to their land is well
recognised in law and forms an integral part of their enjoyment of
property. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has emphasized
that no person has a legal right to encroach upon public land, and that
even long-standing encroachments must be cleared in the interest of
the public. Specifically, in the case of Friends Colony Development
Committee v. State of Orissa1, the Supreme Court observed as
follows:
"Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona
fide or are attributable to some mis-understanding or are
such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition
would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Other than
these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned
and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be
kept at a bare minimum."
2004 (8) SCC 733
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
13. Applying the abovementioned precedent to the case in hand, this
Court reiterates that public roads cannot be diverted or obstructed for
private gain, and municipal authorities are duty-bound to restore
such land to its intended public use. The obstruction of the Petitioners'
right of access, if allowed to persist, would constitute a violation of
their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) & (e), and 21 of the
Constitution. A public authority's failure to act against encroachment
despite judicial directions, and its passive complicity in enabling such
obstruction, constitutes a breach of constitutional obligations and an
affront to the rule of law.
V. CONCLUSION:
14. In the light of the above, the construction raised by Opposite Party
No.4 upon the public road, in breach of the terms of the original 2018
permission and contrary to the findings of the Tahasildar's inspection
report dated 15.03.2024, is hereby declared unauthorized and illegal.
Consequently, the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality, is directed to
initiate eviction proceedings against the Opp. Party No.4 under the
Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1972 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
15. The eviction process must be concluded within a maximum period of
sixty (60) days, unless specifically restrained by a competent judicial
forum. Opp. Party No.4 shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the course of such proceedings. Simultaneously,
should Opp. Party No.4 be found eligible, the Municipality may
consider his application for relocation or rehabilitation under any
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
applicable policy or scheme, including the Street Vendors (Protection
of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. However,
it is clarified that consideration of relocation shall not operate as a bar
to eviction or as a condition precedent to the enforcement of statutory
eviction powers.
16. Given the conflicting directions in W.P.(C) No.39022 of 2023 and
W.P.(C) No.5690 of 2024, the Petitioners are granted liberty to apply
for impleadment and seek modification or vacation of the status quo
order in W.P.(C) No.5690 of 2024 within a period of fifteen (15) days
from the date of this judgment.
17. Further, the Municipal Commissioner, Puri, shall file a detailed
compliance affidavit before this Court within seventy-five (75) days
from the date of this order, indicating the precise steps taken to
implement the eviction proceedings in accordance with law and the
timeline prescribed herein.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition as well as the I.A. stand disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th June, 2025/
