Orissa High Court
Subhadra Sahoo And Ors vs State Of Odisha And 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: 20-Nov-2025 13:50:39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10769 of 2025
along with
W.P.(C) Nos.21352, 21545, 27669, 28037, 28259 and 28261 of 2024
(In the matters of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
In W.P.(C) No.10769 of 2025
Subhadra Sahoo and Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Mr. Madan Mohan Swain, Adv.
Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Rakesh Behera, Adv.
(for O.P.6)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-29.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-
mentioned Writ Petitions, those were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court deems it
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.10769 of 2025 as the lead case for the
purpose of adjudication of all these cases.
2. In W.P.(C) No.10769 of 2025, the Petitioners seek a direction from this
Court to quash the dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Collector,
Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No.1 of 2025 and the consequent eviction
notices dated 20.03.2025 issued under the Orissa Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, and to protect their
lawful possession of the shop rooms until expiry of their valid lease
agreements.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The dispute concerns shop rooms situated on the right side of
Kamakhyanagar, Talcher NH-53 under Badajhara village within
Badajhara Gram Panchayat, which the petitioners occupy for
livelihood pursuant to an earlier Panchayat allotment described as a
17-year arrangement with security deposits in the range of ₹10,000 to
₹20,000 and regular rent payments.
(ii) The petitioners rely on Gram Panchayat resolutions and subsequent
communications to assert that their occupation was ratified and that
upset price fixation for GP properties for 2022-23 was processed
through the BDO, Parjang, and approved by the Sub-Collector under
letters dated 13.12.2021, 05.01.2022 and 06.01.2022; after a change of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Sarpanch, rent acceptance allegedly stopped at the office counter and
the petitioners deposited rent in the GP bank account.
(iii) On 01.07.2024 the Gram Panchayat issued show-cause notices calling
upon the petitioners to furnish documents in support of their
occupation; the petitioners submitted replies with copies of
agreements, deposits and resolutions; on 22.07.2024 the GP recorded a
resolution that the petitioners lacked valid authorization and resolved
to evict them, followed by individual eviction notices dated 06.08.2024.
(iv) The petitioners filed W.P.(C) Nos. 21545, 28261, 27669, 21352 and 28259
of 2024 challenging the GP actions and received interim orders
restraining coercive eviction; during pendency, the Sarpanch filed
W.P.(C) No. 31778 of 2024 which was disposed of on 30.01.2025
granting liberty to approach the Collector for consideration after
hearing affected parties.
(v) Acting on the disposal order, the Collector, Dhenkanal, registered
Misc. Case No. 01/2025, issued notices on 13.03.2025 to the petitioners
for hearing, and on 18.03.2025 directed initiation of eviction
proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972; on 20.03.2025 the Tahasildar
issued eviction notices under Section 4(1) of that Act; the petitioners
remain in possession under subsisting interim protection in their
earlier writ petitions.
(vi) The record placed by the petitioners includes earlier GP resolutions
dated 02.10.2020 and 10.11.2020 relating to leasing of the market
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
complex shops, including a proposal of long-term tenure, which they
cite as indicative of a formal process undertaken by the then GP for
allotment and rent collection.
(vii) Opposite Party No. 5, the Block Development Officer, Parjang, and
Opposite Party No. 6, the present Sarpanch, have filed counter
affidavits disputing maintainability and denying the petitioners'
claims, asserting that the shop allotments were made without
mandatory prior approvals under the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act,
1964 and the Odisha Gram Panchayat Rules, 2014, particularly in
relation to Rule 49(2) for leases beyond five and ten years and Rule
50(2) concerning execution under common seal with prior Government
approval.
(viii) The opposite parties state that no public auction or competitive process
was conducted as required by Rule 48(4), (5) and (6) of the 2014 Rules
and by the Panchayati Raj Department letter dated 16.01.2016 which
envisages transparent auction of completed GP buildings with
preference to SHGs; they cite absence of public notice and bid sheets
for 2020-2021 and contend that rent and upset price were not fixed
with Sub-Collector approval for the impugned allotments.
(ix) The Sarpanch attributes the earlier allotments to actions of the then
Sarpanch, stated to be related to one of the petitioners, and describes
the process as lacking advertisement and approvals; upon assuming
office, she issued show-cause notices, examined documents, and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
sponsored a GP resolution seeking eviction of occupants found to lack
valid authorization.
(x) The BDO acknowledges that similar departures from the statutory
scheme occurred in other Gram Panchayats such as Muktapasi, Sarang,
Saanda, Parjang and Barihapur, and states that steps will be taken for
enforcement of the Act and Rules; the opposite parties add that
practices elsewhere cannot regularize any illegality in the present
matter.
(xi) The parties converge that multiple proceedings are on foot: the
petitioners' 2024 writ petitions where interim protection subsists, the
Sarpanch's 2024 writ which led to the Collector's process, the
Collector's order dated 18.03.2025 under the OPPE Act, and
Tahasildar's Section 4(1) notices dated 20.03.2025; the core controversy
for adjudication is whether the petitioners' occupancy flows from a
legally valid lease or from an allotment rendered void for want of
statutory approvals and procedure.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioners contend that their occupation is lawful, being based on
valid lease agreements duly ratified by the Gram Panchayat and
approved by the competent authorities.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) The impugned eviction order dated 18.03.2025 and the subsequent
notice dated 20.03.2025 are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles
of natural justice.
(iii) The Collector acted in excess of jurisdiction by adjudicating the matter
despite the pendency of earlier writ petitions involving identical issues
before this Hon'ble Court, thereby amounting to judicial impropriety.
(iv) The Sarpanch, in W.P.(C) No. 31778 of 2024, suppressed material facts
regarding ongoing litigations and interim orders protecting the
petitioners, amounting to abuse of process of court.
(v) The change of Sarpanch or office bearers in a statutory body does not
nullify lawful contracts executed by the Gram Panchayat.
Administrative continuity and sanctity of prior agreements must be
preserved.
(vi) The eviction notices have been issued with mala fide intent, driven by
personal and political vendetta, to dislodge poor and unprivileged
occupants without following due procedure.
(vii) The proceedings under the OPPE Act are vitiated as the petitioners
were neither unauthorized occupants nor defaulters; hence, invoking
the Act is legally untenable.
(viii) The Panchayat's earlier resolutions to lease the shops on long-term
basis (99 years) and continuous acceptance of rent negate the allegation
of illegality or encroachment.
(ix) The Collector failed to appreciate that identical leases exist in other
Gram Panchayats of the same Block and District, where no such
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
eviction proceedings have been initiated, rendering the present action
discriminatory and arbitrary.
(x) The impugned action infringes Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution by
threatening the petitioners' right to livelihood without authority of
law.
(xi) The writ petitions already pending before this Hon'ble Court, in which
interim protection was granted, should have precluded the authorities
from initiating parallel eviction proceedings.
(xii) The orders are tainted by procedural illegality, suppression of facts,
and absence of jurisdiction are liable to be quashed, and the petitioners
deserve protection till expiry of their valid agreements.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Ms. Gayatri Patra, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties/ State
earnestly made the following submissions in support of her
contentions:
(i) The opposite parties contended that the entire lease transaction in
favour of the petitioners is illegal, having been executed without
Collector's approval and in contravention of mandatory provisions
under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and the Odisha Gram
Panchayat Rules, 2014.
(ii) The so-called 17-year lease is void ab initio, as the Panchayat lacked
competence to execute such long-term agreements without prior
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
sanction from higher authorities. The alleged documents and
agreements relied upon by the petitioners carry no legal sanctity.
(iii) The then Sarpanch, who was directly related to one of the petitioners,
acted in abuse of official position and allotted Panchayat assets in a
non-transparent, collusive, and unauthorized manner, without issuing
any public advertisement or conducting a lawful auction process.
(iv) The official communication of the Panchayati Raj Department dated
16.01.2016 required auction of completed shop rooms with priority to
Self-Help Groups. The failure to follow this guideline and lack of
public notification renders the allotment invalid.
(v) The rent was arbitrarily determined without fixation of upset price by
the Sub-Collector, violating Rule 48(4) of the OGP Rules, 2014. No bid
sheet or public notice exists to prove compliance with Rule 48(5) and
(6).
(vi) The petitioners cannot derive any enforceable right from an unlawful
contract. Payment of rent, possession, or Panchayat resolutions cannot
validate a lease created in defiance of statutory provisions.
(vii) The Collector, being the competent revenue authority, was justified in
ordering eviction proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, as the petitioners are
in illegal occupation of Panchayat property.
(viii) The Sarpanch's action in approaching this Court through W.P.(C) No.
31778 of 2024 was lawful and aimed at protecting public property from
encroachment. The plea of suppression of facts is unfounded since the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
petitioners were already protected under interim orders and continue
in possession.
(ix) The contention of discrimination by referring to similar allotments in
other Panchayats is baseless; illegality elsewhere does not legitimize
the present case. The doctrine of "negative equality" has no application
in matters of statutory violation.
(x) The opposite parties, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition
as devoid of merit, contending that entertaining such petitions would
amount to perpetuating illegality and undermining statutory
governance at the Panchayat level.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
7. The core question that emerges is whether the petitioners' occupation
of the Gram Panchayat shop rooms is backed by any legally valid
lease, or whether it stands vitiated for non-compliance with mandatory
statutory requirements. The answer to this question will determine if
the petitioners can resist eviction under the Orissa Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, or if their writ
petitions must fail.
8. Gram Panchayats in Odisha are statutory bodies governed by the
Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 and the Odisha Grama Panchayat
Rules, 2014. These provisions strictly regulate the transfer or lease of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Panchayat property. In particular, Rule 49(2) of the 2014 Rules imposes
clear limits on leasing: no lease exceeding five years (and up to ten
years) can be granted without prior approval of the Sub-Collector, and
any lease beyond ten years requires prior approval of the Collector.
Moreover, the Rules envisage that leases of GP properties must
ordinarily be effected through transparent public auction and
competitive bidding, with fixation of an upset price by the Sub-
Collector and wide publicity for the auction (Rule 48(4)-(6)). These
requirements are not mere formalities but are fundamental to ensure
that public property is not doled out in a clandestine or nepotistic
manner, and that the constitutional mandate of equality under Article
14 is upheld in the disposal of public assets. Any departure from these
procedures without lawful sanction strikes at the heart of the rule of
law and renders the transaction ultra vires.
9. In the present case, the petitioners assert rights under a 17-year lease
arrangement purportedly entered with the then Gram Panchayat
authorities in 2020. It is undisputed that the petitioners came into
possession of the shop rooms pursuant to some resolution of the
previous Sarpanch and had deposited sums of ₹10,000-₹20,000 each as
"security" while agreeing to pay monthly rent. However, when tested
on the touchstone of the above legal framework, this arrangement
collapses like a house of cards. No document has been produced
evidencing any prior approval of the Sub-Collector or Collector for a
long-term lease of 17 years in favour of the petitioners. Such approval
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
is sine qua non under Rule 49(2) for leases exceeding the five-year
threshold.
10. Likewise, there is no evidence that any public auction or tender was
conducted before selecting the petitioners as lessees. On the contrary,
the record suggests the allotment was made by private negotiation at
the behest of the former Sarpanch, who happened to be related to one
of the petitioners. This mode of allotment, bypassing an open auction
and thereby foreclosing competition, is prima facie arbitrary and
illegal, as it violates the duty of the Gram Panchayat to follow a
transparent procedure for leasing public property
11. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta
Congress v. State of M.P1 has emphatically held that any allotment of
public property by treating the exercise as a private venture is
arbitrary, discriminatory, and an act of favoritism offending Article 14.
The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a
rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications
made by individuals, bodies, organizations or institutions
de hors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its
agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made
by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of
land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State
cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging
competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other
form of largesse by the State or its
agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a
AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1834
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary,
discriminatory and an act of favoritism and/or nepotism
violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article
14 of the Constitution."
12. The petitioners' lease, stemming from such a surreptitious allotment
without competitive bidding or requisite sanctions, cannot be elevated
to the status of a lawful grant, it is void ab initio, and in the eyes of
law, non est. The Gram Panchayat, a creature of statute, simply had no
authority to create a 17-year lease on its property without following the
procedure established by law; ultra vires acts of a statutory body
confer no legal rights on the beneficiaries.
13. Given the illegality of the alleged leases, the petitioners' status is
effectively that of unauthorised occupants of public premises. The label
may sound harsh considering the petitioners have been paying rents to
the Panchayat (even if those payments were later refused by the new
Sarpanch and had to be deposited in the GP's account). Yet, it is a
settled legal principle that mere possession and payment of rent cannot
legitimize an occupation that originated unlawfully. One cannot
acquire a lawful entitlement to public property simply by continuing in
occupation or by the passage of time.
14. In fact, this Court Lal Baba Dargha (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha2has
held that long-term residence on government land was held not to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
confer any legal right or equity in favour of the occupant. The relevant
excerpts are produced below:
"With regard to the plea based on long-standing structures
and assertions of public utility, it must be noted that no
amount of well- intentioned justification can override the
statutory restrictions governing the occupation of
Government land. Unauthorised use of Location public
premises, even if purported to serve a public purpose,
cannot be legitimised unless regularised in accordance with
law."
15. In the eyes of the law, the petitioners' possession, lacking any sanction
of a valid lease or deed, is no better than an encroachment,
notwithstanding the façade of a 17-year agreement concocted by the
previous Panchayat administration.
16. The consequence that follows from the above finding is that the
initiation of eviction proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 cannot be faulted. The
Collector, Dhenkanal, acting upon the liberty granted by this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 31778 of 2024 dated 30 January 2025, provided the
petitioners an opportunity of hearing on 18 March 2025. Upon being
satisfied that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation, the
Collector directed the Tahasildar to issue notices under Section 4(1) of
the Act.
17. The Act provides a summary procedure meant to safeguard public
property from unlawful occupation. It requires that notice be served,
objections considered, and a quasi-judicial determination made by the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
designated authority before any eviction. In this case, the petitioners
were served show-cause notices and took part in the proceedings both
before the Gram Panchayat in July 2024 and later before the Collector.
Their allegation that the eviction orders violated natural justice is
therefore without substance, as due process was followed even if the
outcome was unfavourable to them.
18. The Court also finds no procedural irregularity in the Collector's
participation. Once this Court had authorised recourse to the Collector,
the pendency of earlier writ petitions did not preclude the statutory
process from continuing. The petitioners' claim that the Sarpanch
obtained the order of 30 January 2025 by suppressing facts ought to
have been raised in that proceeding itself. An order obtained through
concealment of facts can be challenged and set aside in appropriate
proceedings, but the present case concerns the legality of the
petitioners' occupation. Even if one were to disregard the Collector's
order on technical grounds, the fact remains that the petitioners have
no lawful entitlement to remain in the premises. The Court cannot turn
away from this legal reality.
V. CONCLUSION:
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the
Collector, Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No.1 of 2025 and the eviction
notices dated 20.03.2025 issued under the OPPE Act do not suffer from
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
any legal infirmity warranting interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, all the above-mentioned Writ Petitions are dismissed.
21. 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 Nov., 2025
