Orissa High Court
Khetrabasi Behera & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12057 of 2023
along with
batch of cases
(In the matters of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
(In W.P.(C) No.12057 of 2023)
Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Koushik Anand Guru, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Dash, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Sanjib Swain, Adv.
Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv.
Mr. Akash Acharya, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 25.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 14.11.2025
(W.P.(C) Nos.12057, 12074, 12076, 14343 of 2023 and
W.P.(C) Nos.273, 2149 & 8354 of 2024)
Page 1 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:01
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the Writ Petitions referred to above
involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard
analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For
the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, W.P.(C) No. 12057
of 2023 is treated as the lead case.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 12057 of 2023, the Petitioners call in question the action
of the Opposite Parties in declining to settle the land in their favour in
respect of Shantipalli Basti, situated at Sahid Nagar under the
jurisdiction of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and
Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA). The Petitioners further
allege that the authorities have issued instructions through
loudspeakers directing them to vacate the basti, without adhering to
the safeguards enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Olga
Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, as
well as the principles reiterated by this Court in (Mrs.) Rutupurna
Mohanty, Managing Trustee, Maa Ghara Foundation & 43 Others v.
State of Odisha & Others1
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as narrated by the Petitioners
in the Writ Petition as follows:
Writ Petition (C) No. 11667 of 2010
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
i. The Petitioners assert that their father, grandfather, and great-
grandfather have been residing in Shantipalli Basti for several
decades, and that they themselves are long-standing slum
dwellers. It is contended that the Government of Odisha has
launched the 'Jaga Mission' to recognize, upgrade, and
rehabilitate slum dwellers across the State, and the Petitioners
claim entitlement to its benefits.
ii. It is stated that presently more than 400 families reside in
Shantipalli Basti, all of whom have been identified as slum
dwellers. A substantial number of them belong to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections. For the
welfare of the inhabitants, the State Government has established
a school as well as two Anganwadi Centres within or adjacent to
the basti, where the children of the locality regularly attend.
iii. The Petitioners further submit that, upon due verification of
their residence and identity, the State Administration has issued
Ration Cards, Voter Identity Cards, and Aadhaar Cards to the
inhabitants. They further assert that the residents have been
living in the said locality for three to four generations, with full
knowledge of all concerned authorities, including the
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the
Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA).
iv. It is also averred that the District Administration has provided
essential civic amenities to Shantipalli Basti by installing
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
drinking-water facilities, including water tanks and tube wells.
Several residents have also obtained electricity connections,
though some still remain without access to electricity.
v. According to the Petitioners, no notice of any kind has been
issued to the inhabitants by the District Administration, BMC, or
BDA regarding demolition or eviction. Nonetheless, they allege
that they have been orally instructed, through loudspeaker
announcements, to vacate the basti and surrender the land,
purportedly to facilitate construction of an apartment project by
private builders.
vi. The Petitioners further state that the members of the Self-Help
Group, along with other inhabitants of the basti, submitted a
representation dated 10.10.2017 before the Chief Secretary,
Government of Odisha, seeking rehabilitation in accordance
with the applicable Government guidelines. However, despite
the lapse of considerable time, no action is stated to have been
taken by the competent authority on the said representation.
vii. In these circumstances, having been left remediless, the
Petitioners contend that they were constrained to approach this
Court seeking appropriate relief.
II. PETITIONERS' SUBMISSIONS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
i. The Petitioners candidly acknowledge that their occupation
of the land is technically unauthorized; yet, they urge that
their presence in Shantipalli Basti is not a transient
encroachment but a habitation deeply rooted in ancestry,
spanning over three successive generations. Over the passage
of time, the District Administration, fully cognizant of their
longstanding settlement, has extended to them various civic
amenities and welfare measures, thereby implicitly
recognizing them as slum dwellers and integral members of
the socio-economic fabric of the locality.
ii. It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties have not
issued any statutory notice of eviction which is a requirement
that stands as a mandatory precondition under the Odisha
Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The Petitioners place
reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab
Khan & Others2 wherein the Court underscored the
obligation of municipal authorities to evolve and implement
rehabilitation schemes in a planned and budgeted manner, so
as to uphold the right to shelter of the urban poor. The
Petitioners, belonging to the most economically vulnerable
strata--engaged in humble occupations such as daily labour,
driving, and sanitation work and assert that they have been
dwelling on the land since approximately 1940. It is thus
(1997)11 SCC 121
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
urged that their right to life, as guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution, encompasses the right to reside with
dignity and security.
iii. With considerable emphasis, the Petitioners invoke the
celebrated Constitutional Bench decision in Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation3, wherein it was held that
the right to life includes the right to livelihood, and that such
livelihood cannot be extinguished save and except by a
procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. The Petitioners
contend that the mode and manner adopted by the State of
Odisha, the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, the
Bhubaneswar Development Authority, and the District
Administration--particularly the issuance of oral commands
through loudspeaker announcements, bereft of any statutory
notice or opportunity of hearing--stands in stark
contravention of the principles of natural justice and falls
woefully short of the constitutional standards articulated by
the Supreme Court. This Court in Rutupurna Mohanty
(supra) has also held and given the following directions to
the State Government so also the Central Government and
Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of the entire
State:
3 1985 (3) SCC 545
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(1) The Central Government is hereby directed to
reallocate funds under the different schemes on the
basis of requisition made by the Orissa State
Government for effective implementation of the
schemes on the basis of the urgent need to rehabilitate
and resettle the inhabitants/evictees of the various
slums. For this purpose, the State Government,
Municipalities and the Municipal Corporations in the
entire State shall take effective necessary steps to
identify the slums slum dwellers/inhabitants/evictees
for the purpose of giving effect to the benefit under the
Scheme framed by the Central Government and the
schemes required to be framed by the State
Government and Urban Local Bodies.
(2) The State Government and the Urban Local Bodies
in the entire State viz Municipalities and Municipal
Corporations shall take effective measure to draw up a
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) as
envisaged under the provisions of the Orissa
Municipal Act and the Orissa Municipal Corporation
Act, 2003 and also identify appropriate land
Government or private and if necessary acquire the
same on the basis of the requirements for the purpose
of construction of residential apartments to
rehabilitate/resettle the slum dwellers/evictees in the
entire State. It is also open for them to identify the
urgent need and requirement to provide shelter by
constructing residential apartments and make
requisition to the Central Government to reallocate
funds. The State Government for this purpose shall
ear-mark budget allocation to discharge its statutory
obligations as provided in both the statutory
enactments and see that the schemes are implemented
effectively as expeditiously as possible by availing the
budget allocation under the aforesaid two schemes for
the year 2005-2012 after identifying the places in the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
entire State and ensure that the schemes are
implemented by sending utilization reports and
progress on reforms by the State in order to avail the
benefit of the budget allocation already made and also
yet to be made for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
iv. The Petitioners, with candour and fairness, concede that their
occupation of the said houses in the basti may not enjoy the
sanction of formal authorization, yet they assert, with equal
force, that their existence in Shantipalli Basti is not the
product of a casual trespass but the culmination of an
inherited habitation, deeply interwoven with their lineage for
over three successive generations. With the passage of time,
and in full awareness of this long-rooted settlement, the
District Administration has extended various civic amenities
and welfare facilities ranging from water supply and ration
benefits to voter registration. According to the Petitioners
they are staying there and have not merely administrative
recognition but an implicit acknowledgment of their identity
as slum dwellers and indispensable constituents of the socio-
economic tapestry of the area.
v. The Petitioners further submit that the Opposite Parties have
failed to comply with the indispensable procedural safeguard
of issuing a statutory notice of eviction, as mandated under
the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. In support
of their plea, they draw sustenance from the authoritative
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan &
Others (supra) wherein the Apex Court has emphatically
observed that municipal bodies are duty-bound to craft and
implement rehabilitation measures in a systematic, planned,
and budget-supported manner, so as to preserve and
promote the right to shelter of economically marginalized
urban dwellers. The Petitioners, belonging to the most
vulnerable strata of society who are earning their livelihood
through manual labour, driving, sanitation work, and other
modest vocations and assert that their families have resided
on the land since around 1940. In this backdrop, they contend
that the right to life under Article 21, which has been
expansively interpreted by constitutional courts, must
necessarily encompass the right to reside with dignity and a
modicum of security.
vi. With pronounced emphasis, the Petitioners place reliance
upon the seminal judgment of the Constitution Bench in Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation(supra) wherein it
was unequivocally held that the right to life includes within
its sweep the right to livelihood, and that no person can be
deprived of such livelihood save through a procedure that is
just, fair, and reasonable. The Petitioners allege that the
conduct of the State of Odisha, the Bhubaneswar Municipal
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Corporation, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, and
the District Administration particularly the issuance of oral
directives through loudspeaker announcements,
unaccompanied by statutory notice, inquiry or opportunity
for representation is fundamentally alien to lawful procedure,
violative of the principles of natural justice, and wholly
inconsistent with the constitutional jurisprudence laid down
by the Supreme Court.
vii. he Petitioners further aver that the Government of Odisha,
with the avowed objective of securing land rights for duly
identified slum dwellers and of facilitating their
redevelopment, rehabilitation, and up-gradation, has enacted
the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017 and
launched the flagship initiative popularly known as the 'Jaga
Mission'. According to the Petitioners, they fall unequivocally
within the category of slum dwellers contemplated under the
statutory framework, having resided in the basti for several
decades. Notwithstanding such longstanding habitation and
apparent eligibility, they contend that they have been
excluded from the conferment of land rights envisaged under
the said legislative and administrative scheme.
viii. It is urged that the residents of Shantipalli Basti are drawn
from the most socio-economically distressed strata of the
society subsisting on precarious daily wages, living at the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
brink of destitution and, in certain instances, forced into
begging within the limits of the Bhubaneswar Municipal
Corporation. In recognition of the acute vulnerability of such
communities, the State has also introduced the 'Odisha
Livable Land Mission', aimed at providing homestead land,
issuing pattas, and implementing systematic measures for the
rehabilitation and upliftment of basti dwellers. The
Petitioners submit that, despite the earnest efforts of the Self-
Help Group and the inhabitants of the basti, who had
articulated their grievances through a detailed representation
dated 10.10.2017, the competent authorities have remained in
a state of inaction, having neither responded to nor taken any
steps on the said representation.
ix. In the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the Petitioners
earnestly contends that the reliefs prayed for favourable
consideration by this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.4/
BHUBANEWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4 has
advanced the following submissions with considerable emphasis:
(i) It is submitted at the outset that the guidelines annexed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition have now lost all operative
force, having been rendered redundant and superseded
upon the introduction and subsequent implementation of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the Government of India's flagship housing schemes
namely the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) and thereafter the
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). With specific
reference to the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act,
2017 and the Rules framed thereunder, learned counsel
contends that the Petitioners have proceeded under a
fundamental misconception in seeking benefits under the
Jaga Mission without undertaking a proper reading,
interpretation, or appreciation of the statutory provisions.
(ii) Adverting to the scheme of Chapter II of the 2017 Act,
learned counsel submits that a harmonious and purposive
reading of its provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the
entitlement of slum dwellers to land rights is expressly
conditioned and circumscribed by the parameters stipulated
therein. The statutory design embodies a sequential
legislative intent that is in the first instance, to identify
eligible slum dwellers and confer upon them land rights
strictly in accordance with the criteria prescribed under the
Act, and, thereafter, upon such conferment and subject to
satisfaction of the requisite eligibility norms, to extend to
them the benefit of housing assistance under the PMAY
framework. Under PMAY, the financial contribution of the
Central Government is statutorily limited to a maximum of
Rs. 1.5 lakhs per dwelling unit, and the provision of such
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
housing is contingent upon compliance with the modalities
contemplated under the scheme.
(iii) With regard to the role of the State Government and the
State Level Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee
(SLSMC), learned counsel further submits that the SLSMC is
constituted and empowered under the PMAY framework
and chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha,
has in the exercise of its statutory and policy-making
authority, taken a considered decision in its official
proceedings. In particular, under Agenda No. 2, which
pertains to the contribution to be made by beneficiaries
under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for
availing dwelling units, the SLSMC has resolved to fix the
beneficiary contribution at Rs. 1.5 lakhs per unit under the
PMAY scheme. This policy determination is binding and
forms an integral component of the financial architecture of
PMAY as implemented within the State.
(iv) It is thus contended that the Petitioners, in seeking to
bypass the statutory framework of the 2017 Act and the
policy determinations of the SLSMC, cannot claim an
absolute or unqualified right either to land or to housing
assistance, contrary to the parameters prescribed under the
governing schemes and statutes.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) A perusal of the proceedings dated 20.02.2016 reveals that,
under Agenda No. 2, the SLSMC had specifically resolved
to fix the beneficiary contribution for Economically Weaker
Section (EWS) households at Rs. 1.5 lakhs per affordable
housing unit. This determination was made after giving
due consideration of the estimated construction cost and the
annual income parameters applicable to the target group.
Accordingly, the contribution of Rs. 1.5 lakh was prescribed
for EWS beneficiaries having an annual income not
exceeding Rs. 1,80,000/-, as reflected in the proposal placed
before the Committee.
(vi) It is further submitted that a conjoint reading of Agenda No.
4 of the proceedings demonstrates that the Committee
approved, inter alia, 22 Detailed Project Reports (DPRs)
under the Beneficiary-Led Construction (BLC) component
and two DPRs under the in-situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR)
projects in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode, based on
the recommendations of the State-Level Appraisal
Committee (SLAC). Under the BLC component, the
Government of India's grant per EWS dwelling unit was
fixed at Rs. 1.5 lakhs. For a total of 16,205 EWS units, the
aggregate beneficiary contribution was projected at Rs.
24,097.30 lakhs, which, when apportioned, works out to
approximately Rs. 1.5 lakhs per beneficiary. The State
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Government's share and the Urban Local Body's (ULB)
share were determined at Rs. 634.58 lakhs and Rs. 1,671.54
lakhs respectively for the said EWS units.
(vii) In the same Agenda No. 4, the Committee also considered
the in-situ Slum Development project under the PPP mode.
Under this component, the Government of India's
assistance per EWS unit was fixed at Rs. 1 lakh. For the
proposed 6,000 EWS dwelling units, the aggregate
beneficiary contribution was projected at Rs. 9,000 lakhs,
which again translates to approximately Rs. 1.5 lakhs per
unit. The State's contribution was to be provided in the
form of land, while the PPP partner was to contribute Rs.
19,229 lakhs towards the project.
(viii) Learned counsels further submits that the Petitioners form
part of the categories identified under the Affordable
Housing in Partnership (AHP)/In-Situ Slum Redevelopment
(ISSR) schemes, and that they have already been surveyed
and identified as eligible beneficiaries. Consequently, they
have been allotted dwelling units subject to compliance
with the prescribed norms, including payment of their
beneficiary share. It is asserted that while the majority of the
identified beneficiaries have accepted allotment, a few
Petitioners--who are either found ineligible under the
AHP/BLC categories or have refused to comply with the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
beneficiary-share requirement are, nonetheless, occupying
the land and refusing to vacate it. This obstruction, it is
contended, is hindering the Bhubaneswar Development
Authority (BDA) from undertaking the construction of
additional dwelling units for other eligible slum dwellers.
(ix) It is further submitted that the Petitioners' reliance on the
Jaga Mission is wholly misconceived, as the said initiative is
not the exclusive mechanism for rehabilitation. Under the
statutory framework of the 2017 Act and the PMAY
guidelines, a two-stage process must be followed--first,
conferment of land rights to eligible EWS households, and
thereafter, rehabilitation through allotment of dwelling
units constructed by the BDA.
(x) The BDA has filed an affidavit indicating that 849
beneficiaries were identified by the BMC and forwarded for
allotment in Shantipalli Basti, out of which 562 dwelling
units have already been completed in the first phase. Of
these, 462 beneficiaries have already been allotted houses,
but many of them have neither vacated the land nor paid
their beneficiary contribution, despite being assured
financial assistance in the form of bank loans. It is alleged
that several beneficiaries continue to remain in
unauthorised occupation, taking undue advantage of the
subsisting order of status quo passed by this Court.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xi) As a result, the construction of the remaining dwelling
units, forming part of the second phase, cannot commence
until the Petitioners and similarly placed persons vacate the
land. Notices have accordingly been issued by the BDA
directing them to vacate the slum area to facilitate further
construction and rehabilitation of the remaining eligible
slum dwellers.
(xii) It is further submitted that those Petitioners who, for
reasons attributable to administrative exigencies prevailing
during the implementation of the RAY Scheme, could not
initially be brought within the fold of the beneficiary
survey, were subsequently, upon re-verification and in view
of their displacement occasioned by the public project
executed over the Basti land, duly adjudged eligible. Such
persons have, without distinction or deviation, been
brought into the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)
framework and allotted dwelling units on parity with all
similarly circumstanced beneficiaries. The methodology,
rationale, and procedural safeguards underlying such
selection stand elaborately delineated in Annexures A/4 and
B/4 to the counter-affidavit filed at the earliest instance by
Opposite Party No.4.
(xiii) In addition, the BMC, upon undertaking a comprehensive,
door-to-door enumeration exercise has identified no fewer
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
than 1300 inhabitants of the Basti who fulfil the eligibility
parameters prescribed for allotment of housing under the
extant governmental schemes. Consequent upon such
identification, the Government has earmarked an area
measuring Ac. 19.395 dec. in Mouza-Satya Nagar for the
construction of multi-storied residential units. It is further
clarified that, upon clearance of the encroached/slum/Basti
land, all affected persons shall be temporarily rehabilitated
in a duly established Transit House, wherein essential
amenities including but not limited to transportation,
cooked food, and community kitchen facilities shall be
provided throughout the notified interim period.
(xiv) The State Government, in active supervision of the
execution process, has contemporaneously rationalised and
fixed the mandatory beneficiary share payable by
economically weaker section (EWS) households under
PMAY, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and
financial architecture approved by the competent
authorities.
(xv) The Petitioners' plea for conferment of land rights under the
Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017 (popularly
known as Jaga Mission) is wholly misconceived. In the
present case, the eligible inhabitants are not recipients of in-
situ land rights but beneficiaries of a vertical housing
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
intervention through construction of dwelling units. As
such, invocation of the 2017 Act becomes inapposite, the
scheme applicable being one of allotment of constructed
flats rather than vesting of land.
(xvi) It is relevant to underscore that the overarching and
composite policy vision of the State is to secure dignified,
pucca housing for all urban poor, whether through
conferral of land rights under the 2017 Act or through
provision of dwelling units under the PMAY-Urban
framework. In both the Beneficiary-Led Construction (BLC)
and Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) components,
beneficiary contribution is statutorily mandated, subject to
periodic revision by the State Level Sanctioning and
Monitoring Committee (SLSMC). The BMC, in punctilious
adherence to such decisions, is extending EWS housing to
all beneficiaries identified under successive schemes
formulated over time to operationalise the national mandate
of "Housing for All."
(xvii) It is reiterated that, consonant with the applicable scheme
architecture, eligible slum dwellers are required to pay the
stipulated beneficiary share as a condition precedent to
allotment of their respective dwelling units. Recognising the
financial vulnerability of many beneficiaries, institutional
arrangements have been facilitated by the BDA/BMC to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
enable access to credit from banking and financial
institutions, thereby mitigating the economic burden and
ensuring that inability to pay upfront does not impede the
enjoyment of housing rights.
(xviii) Having regard to the factual matrix delineated
hereinabove, and as the grievances articulated by the
Petitioners stand, in substance and effect, fully redressed
through the ongoing statutory and administrative
measures, the present Writ Petitions have been rendered
infructuous. No surviving issue warrants adjudication. The
Writ Petitions, being devoid of merit, are thus liable to be
dismissed, with a consequential direction for vacating the
interim order of status quo and for requiring the Petitioners
to forthwith vacate the subject land and shift to the
designated Transit House pending their relocation to the
dwelling units already earmarked for them.
(xix) It is further submitted that those petitioners who could not
be captured under the survey conducted during the
subsistence of the RAY Scheme, but who were subsequently
found eligible on account of having been displaced or
otherwise adversely affected by the developmental
activities undertaken in the Basti area have also been duly
extended the benefits of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
(PMAY). They have been allotted dwelling units in the same
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
manner as other petitioners who were originally identified.
The entire process, including the criteria and modality
adopted for selection of beneficiaries, has been
comprehensively delineated in Annexures-A/4 and B/4 to
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.4
at the first instance.
(xx) The Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, upon conducting
a detailed survey, has identified 1300 eligible beneficiaries
from the Basti in question to be provided with residential
units under the Scheme, as affirmed in the counter affidavit
of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. In furtherance
thereof, the Government has already earmarked Ac. 19.395
dec. of land in Mouza-Satya Nagar for construction of the
requisite houses/flats. Upon clearance of the
encroached/slum/Basti lands, all existing inhabitants shall
be relocated to a designated Transit House, wherein
necessary minimum facilities--including transportation,
cooked food and/or a free kitchen--shall be made available
for the prescribed interim period.
(xxi) The Government is actively pursuing and expediting the
implementation of the Scheme and has also determined the
beneficiary contribution payable by persons falling within
the EWS category under PMAY, in accordance with the
prescribed terms and conditions.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xxii) The contention of the petitioners regarding allotment of
land under the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act,
2017 (Jaga Mission) is misconceived, inasmuch as the
eligible persons have already been provided dwelling
units/flats constructed pursuant to Government schemes,
thereby rendering the question of allotment of land under
the 2017 Act inapplicable.
(xxiii) It is pertinent to emphasise that the overarching objective
of the Government is to ensure provision of pucca housing
to the urban poor either through conferment of land rights
under the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act and
Rules, 2017, or through allotment of dwelling units under
PMAY-U. In both BLC and AHP components, the
beneficiary contribution, as periodically determined by
SLSMC is mandatory. The BMC is vigorously
implementing Government decisions to ensure that all
eligible EWS beneficiaries identified under various schemes
at different points of time are covered so as to achieve the
Government's objective of "Housing for All."
(xxiv) It is reiterated that, under the aforesaid scheme, eligible
slum dwellers are allotted houses for their rehabilitation
upon payment of their beneficiary contribution. In cases of
financial incapacity, arrangements have been facilitated
through financial institutions/banks, coordinated by
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
BDA/BMC, to enable such beneficiaries to secure loans and
thereby mitigate their economic hardship.
(xxv) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
grievances raised by the petitioners stand fully addressed,
rendering the present Writ Petitions infructuous. No further
adjudication is warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions,
being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, with a
consequential direction to vacate the order of status quo and
to require the petitioners to vacate the land in question and
shift to the transit accommodation provided for their
temporary stay until they are relocated to their allotted
dwelling units.
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.5/
BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:
6. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.5--Bhubaneswar
Development Authority (BDA)--advanced submissions with
considerable emphasis, which may be encapsulated as follows:
(i) That the General Administration Department, Government of
Odisha, by Notification No.23261 dated 04.11.2016, duly
transferred land admeasuring Ac.19.395 dec. situated in Mouza-
Satya Nagar in favour of the BDA for the implementation of the in-
situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR) Project, christened "Shanti Nagar
Awas Yojana." The project contemplates the construction of 1300
dwelling units (Phase-I: 840 units; Phase-II: 460 units) under the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model for the resettlement and
rehabilitation of slum dwellers residing in Shantipali Basti.
(ii) That the final list comprising 849 eligible beneficiary
households was communicated by Opposite Party No.4
(Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation) vide Letter No.27078/BMC
dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure-D/5 to the BDA's Counter Affidavit).
The selection and identification of beneficiaries fall exclusively
within the statutory and administrative domain of the BMC, and
the BDA has no role therein. Out of 560 dwelling units completed
under Phase-I, 462 units have already been duly allotted to the
eligible beneficiaries, the particulars of which stand annexed as
Annexure-B/5.
(iii) Pursuant to the Minutes of the State Level Sanctioning and
Monitoring Committee (SLSMC) held on 06.06.2022, the Committee
approved the beneficiary contribution of Rs.1,50,000/- per EWS
household towards the allotment of Affordable Housing Units
under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), which is in
consonance with the applicable guidelines of the scheme.
(iv) Adequate provisions have been made for temporary relocation
of affected slum dwellers to designated Transit Houses equipped
with the requisite civic amenities to secure their wellbeing during
the interregnum until the permanent housing units are handed
over.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) The land having been lawfully transferred to the BDA for ISSR
implementation, substantial progress has already been achieved,
including the completion of a considerable portion of Phase-I.
However, by virtue of the interim order dated 07.08.2023 directing
maintenance of status quo with respect to the petitioners' existing
dwellings--which order continues to subsist due to periodic
extensions--the progress of the remaining construction has been
rendered stagnant. Further, the petitioners' reluctance to shift to
transit accommodations is impeding the completion of works of
imperative public importance.
(vi) There are many similarly situated residents of Shantipali Basti
have voluntarily vacated their structures without demur and have
subsequently received allotment of newly constructed dwelling
units upon contributing the nominal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which
has been deliberately kept concessional keeping in view the socio-
economic condition of the beneficiaries. Financial support and loan
facilities have also been made available to mitigate their initial
financial burden.
(vii) The Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, while
conferring certain heritable land rights for residential use, does not
envisage or mandate allotment of free dwelling units. The statutory
framework does not derogate from the basic requirement under
PMAY and analogous schemes that beneficiaries must contribute a
stipulated share towards housing costs.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(viii) The petitioners' persistent refusal to cooperate with the
authorities and their insistence on free housing, contrary to
statutory scheme norms, are obstructing the execution of a project
exclusively intended for their socio-economic upliftment. The
project has already yielded tangible benefits for numerous other
slum dwellers similarly placed, and its progress ought not to be
thwarted at the instance of a small non-compliant group.
(ix) In light of the foregoing circumstances, it is prayed that this
Court may be pleased to direct the petitioners to extend full
cooperation to the concerned authorities, vacate the present site,
and shift to the designated Transit Houses so as to facilitate
unhindered continuation of construction activities under the ISSR
Project. It is further prayed that the petitioners be directed to
comply with the terms of the scheme, including payment of the
prescribed beneficiary contribution, in larger public interest.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials
placed on record.
8. It is true that the Petitioners and their forefathers have been residing
in Shantipalli Basti for several decades; however, their occupation of
Government land is unauthorized. Long and continuous possession of
public land, without vesting of title or formal recognition under the
statutory framework, does not confer ownership or indefeasible right
to remain in possession. The right to shelter under Article 21 is a right
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
to reasonable housing and rehabilitation, not a right to trespass or
continue illegal occupation. The Supreme Court has consistently held
that encroachment on public land cannot be regularized merely on the
grounds of long possession, and the State is under a constitutional
obligation to reclaim and utilize public land for planned development
as enunciated in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd4, and
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab5.
9. At the very threshold, this Court is persuaded to observe that the
actions undertaken by the State of Odisha, the Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Bhubaneswar Development
Authority (BDA) are firmly tethered to the statutory architecture of
the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, fortified by the
policy contours of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) and duly
sanctified by the considered determinations of the State Level
Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee (SLSMC).
10.The State has embarked upon a structured, budgeted, and
meticulously conceived programme of in-situ redevelopment, aimed
at transmuting vulnerable informal habitats into dignified, permanent
urban housing. Where a public authority advances a lawful and
transparent scheme for large-scale rehabilitation, courts have
unfailingly declined invitations to convert the right to shelter into an
unyielding shield against development.
(1996) 3 SCC 124
5 (2011) 11 SCC 396
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11.The canonical trilogy of Olga Tellis(supra) Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan(supra), and Shantistar
Builders6 proclaims with clarity that although Article 21 confers a
protective mantle over livelihood and shelter which does not
crystallize into a perpetual entitlement to remain on public land in
derogation of an organised, humane, and publicly beneficial
redevelopment scheme. The right to shelter is a right to be protected,
not a right to obstruct.
12.Further, Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, constitutes a
transformative legislative endeavour which is an instrument designed
to usher slum dwellers from the shadows of informality into the
constitutional sunlight of secured tenure, infrastructural adequacy,
and regulated urban planning. It envisages, inter alia, (1) the
systematic identification of eligible slum dwellers; (2) the conferment
of land rights or, where circumstances so warrant, the provision of
alternative rehabilitation; (3) the calibrated and phased
redevelopment of the notified settlements; and (4) the planning,
coordination, and stewardship of such redevelopment through the
Urban Local Bodies.
Notably, the statute does not sanction unrestrained perpetuation
of encroachments, rather, it provides a structured legislative pathway
through which slum dwellers are progressively integrated into a
planned, regulated and sustainable urban framework.
6 (1990) 1 SCC 520
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
13.Further, the PMAY framework meticulously articulates the modalities
for affordable housing through its ISSR, AHP, and BLC verticals.
Central assistance is circumscribed by prescribed ceilings, while the
contribution of beneficiaries constitutes an indispensable pillar of the
scheme's architectural design. The Union, in its wisdom, expressly
reposes in the States and their State-Level Sanctioning and Monitoring
Committees which is the plenary authority to calibrate contribution
norms, craft the financial architecture, and orchestrate the tempo and
trajectory of implementation.
14.The SLSMC, in the scrupulous and decorous discharge of its statutory
and administrative responsibilities, after an all-encompassing and
discriminating evaluation of project cost, fiscal viability, and the
broader indices of affordability, has prescribed the beneficiary
contribution at Rs.1,50,000/- in unwavering fidelity to the PMAY's
normative architecture. These determinations, grounded in expert
judgment and shaped by considered policy discretion, fall squarely
within the sphere of executive wisdom to which the writ court, guided
by well-settled principles of restraint, will not ordinarily intrude,
unless the decision is clearly vitiated by patent unreasonableness and
arbitrariness is visible.
15.In Olga Tellis, the Supreme Court rendered one of the most resonant
and humane articulations of Article 21, recognizing that the right to
life extends beyond mere animal existence and embraces the right to
livelihood and a modicum of shelter. Yet the judgment, in its proper
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
doctrinal posture, does not erect an impregnable bastion against
eviction. What it insists upon is that any displacement must be
effected through a procedure that is fair, just, and humane, coupled
with a corresponding obligation on the State to offer meaningful
rehabilitation rather than acquiesce in the perpetual continuation of
encroachments. Against this constitutional backdrop, the conduct of
the State in the present case is not merely compliant, it is
conspicuously affirmative. The State has conceptualized a
rehabilitation scheme of substantial amplitude, constructed a
significant corpus of dwelling units, effectuated large-scale allotments,
provided orderly and dignified transit accommodation, and
strengthened the financial footing of beneficiaries through structured
bank linkages. Such endeavours not only satisfy the threshold
envisioned in Olga Tellis (supra), indeed, they transcend it,
exemplifying a model of governance which seems to be
constitutionally scrupulous and administratively compassionate.
16. It is the duty of the State to advance planned and budgeted
rehabilitation as articulated in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v.
Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (supra) wherein the Supreme Court
exhorted urban authorities to craft and operationalize planned,
budgeted schemes for the resettlement of the urban poor, recognizing
that such schemes are indispensable for the attainment of socio-
economic justice. The Court warned against ad hoc governance and
underscored the necessity of systematic resettlement.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
17.The scheme placed before this Court is, in every material respect, the
very embodiment of that judicial exhortation. It is duly budgeted and
financially provisioned, formally sanctioned by the competent
authorities, architected in calibrated phases, informed by institutional
surveys of substantial rigour, anchored in verified beneficiary lists,
and propelled by an overarching statutory mandate that animates its
design and implementation.
18.Further, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Totame (supra) the
Supreme Court reaffirmed a foundational tenet of constitutional
adjudication i.e. judicial review must remain a sentinel on the qui vive,
not a substitute for executive governance. When specialized agencies
and expert committees are statutorily entrusted with the intricate
tasks of planning, supervising, and allotting housing under
redevelopment schemes, courts are enjoined to extend calibrated
oversight, not to assume the mantle of administration. The crafting
and execution of rehabilitation programmes belong to the realm of
administrative statesmanship, the assurance of fairness,
reasonableness, and constitutional fidelity belongs to the judicial
sphere. This doctrine of restraint acquires even greater salience in the
present matter, where Phase-I stands substantially completed,
hundreds of eligible beneficiaries have already received allotments
and the onward progression of the project is hindered only by the
intransigence of a few who now seek to arrest a scheme designed for
the collective upliftment of many.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
19. At the outset, this Court finds no infirmity, either jurisdictional or
substantive, in the transfer of Ac. 19.395 decimals of land by the
General Administration Department to the Bhubaneswar
Development Authority. Such transfer is not a mechanical
administrative gesture, but a deliberate executive act effectuating the
statutory mandate embodied in the Odisha Land Rights to Slum
Dwellers Act, 2017 and the policy architecture of PMAY-Urban. The
redevelopment plan undertaken pursuant thereto rises far above the
narrow confines of a routine governmental function. It is, in fact, a
visionary exercise in urban transformation, intended to replace
precarious shanties with durable and dignified dwelling units. The
project is animated not merely by bureaucratic necessity but by a
larger constitutional aspiration in order to confer stability, dignity,
and security upon those who have historically inhabited the margins
of the urban fabric. Such a purpose is not only legitimate but
luminous; it constitutes a public purpose of the highest order, aligning
executive action with constitutional compassion
20. Equally unassailable is the decision of the State Level Sanctioning and
Monitoring Committee to fix the beneficiary contribution at Rs. 1.5
lakh. This contribution reflects a carefully calibrated policy choice,
informed by a synthesis of statutory guidance, financial viability, and
socio-economic pragmatism. The contribution stands harmonised
with the structure of PMAY-Urban, which contemplates a
combination of Central assistance, State support, and beneficiary
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
participation. The amount fixed is neither confiscatory nor capricious;
rather it is tempered by reason, shaped by financial realism and
softened by the availability of institutional credit for those unable to
tender the sum upfront.
21. The jurisprudence of judicial review emphasizes that courts are not to
venture into the domain of economic decision-making. Where the
Executive acts upon expert assessment and uniform standards,
judicial review does not mutate into economic second-guessing. In
this case, the policy determination bears every hallmark of rationality
22. In so far as the satisfaction of procedural fairness is concerned, the
record reveals an administrative process marked not by abruptness
but by studied deliberation. The authorities have undertaken a
comprehensive enumeration of slum dwellers, identified beneficiaries
with precision, issued formal allotment orders, constructed transit
houses equipped with essential amenities, and facilitated bank-linked
financial support to the economically vulnerable. These measures
collectively constitute a rich tapestry of procedural fairness, far
exceeding the minimum threshold contemplated in Olga Tellis
(supra). The constitutional requirement is fairness, not perfection;
what has been exhibited here is fairness in abundance
23.In terms of public interest and proportionality also, the balance tilts
decisively in favour of the state. The doctrine of proportionality
mandates the judicial balancing of individual hardship against
collective welfare. On one side of the scale stands an ambitious,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
meticulously structured redevelopment project intended to uplift
1,300 families, many of whom have already received allotments and
await occupation of their permanent dwellings. On the other side, are
a small number of petitioners who, despite being offered dignified
alternatives, resist vacating public land. Their insistence cannot
outweigh the imperative of completing a project that is emphatically
in the public interest. Allowing individual intransigence to impede a
socially transformative urban project would enable private hesitance
to prevail over public interest, frustrating the constitutional mandate.
24. The grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the non-service of
statutory notice, in the circumstances, devoid of substance. Notice is
not an incantation but it is a vehicle of fairness. Where the petitioners
have been surveyed, identified as beneficiaries, engaged in the
allotment process, and offered transit accommodation, the substantive
essence of natural justice stands fully satisfied. The law does not insist
upon ritualistic formalism once fairness has been substantively
achieved.
25. While ancestral occupation may evoke sympathy, it does not confer a
legally enforceable right to perpetuate residence upon public land in
defiance of a statutory redevelopment plan. The 2017 Act provides the
lawful channel through which entitlements must flow, and heredity
cannot supplant legislative design.
26. Insofar as the reliance placed on loudspeaker announcement is
concerned, the contention is wholly misconceived. Courts of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
constitutional jurisdiction are not swayed by shadows cast by
procedural trivialities; they concern themselves with substance rather
than semblance, with legal reality rather than forensic rhetoric. The
sporadic use of loudspeakers whether to disseminate information or
to caution residents cannot, by any stretch of legal imagination,
eclipse the rich documentary record reflecting exhaustive surveys,
verified beneficiary lists, formal allotments and the provision of
dignified transit accommodation. Minor administrative blemishes,
even if assumed to exist, cannot be elevated to a pedestal where they
vitiate an otherwise structured, humane, and legally impeccable
rehabilitation process conceived in the larger public interest.
27.The statutory mandate of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers
Act, 2017, the policy architecture of PMAY-Urban, the carefully
reasoned determinations of the SLSMC, and the luminous guidance of
the Supreme Court's jurisprudence together weave a cohesive and
compelling tapestry in favour of the State's action. The role of the
Court is to ensure that redevelopment proceeds with fairness, not to
permit fairness to be weaponized into a tool of perpetual obstruction.
In harmonizing individual rights with collective welfare, the
constitutional balance tilts undeniably in favour of permitting the
State, the BMC, and the BDA to advance this lawful, compassionate,
and socially transformative housing initiative, subject always to
supervisory safeguards that ensure transparency, humanity, and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
justice. In view of the foregoing analysis, the following directions
commend themselves for judicial issuance:
a. The legality of the land transfer to the BMC/BDA and the
determinations of the SLSMC including fixation of
beneficiary contribution stand affirmed.
b. The Court records the substantial progress already
achieved in Phase-I and recognizes the pressing public
interest in commencing and completing Phase-II without
further obstruction.
c. The petitioners shall relocate to the designated transit
accommodation, equipped with minimum humane
facilities, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Court.
d. The BMC and BDA shall extend financial facilitation,
including bank-linked credit support, to beneficiaries
unable to pay the contribution upfront.
e. The interim order of status quo shall stand vacated, insofar
as it impedes the continuation of construction, upon the
petitioners' failure to comply within the prescribed period.
f. A Monitoring Committee, akin to that envisaged in
Shantistar (supra) shall be constituted to oversee the
fairness of allotments, adequacy of transit facilities, and
seamless facilitation of financial support.
28.Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
29. 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 14th November, 2025.
