1. Bijay Kumar Moharana (dead)
Son of Arjun Moharana.
2. Gopinath Biswal
Aged about 56 years
Son of Anant Biswal.
3. Purusottam Nayak
Aged about 49 years
Son of Danardan Biswal.
4. Hari Charan Pati @
Hirabandhu Champati
Aged about 73 years
Son of Dhai Champati.
5. Dillip Kumar Mohanty
Aged about 60 years
Son of Ranka Mohanty.
6. Prabhat Kumar Sahoo
Aged about 42 years
Son of Laxman Sahoo.
7. Jaya Krushna Behera
Aged about 43 years
Son of Kanhei Behera.
8. Pramod Pattanaik
Aged about 35 years
Son of Shyamabandhu Pattanaik.
9. Chittaranjan Sardar
Aged about 76 years
Son of Dayanidhi Sardar.
10. Sukant Nayak
Aged about 45 years
Son of Giridhari Nayak.
11. Pravat Chhualsingh
Aged about 42 years
Son of Sanatan Chhualsingh.
12. Bikash Paikray
Aged about 38 years
Son of Basant Paikray.
13. Akshaya Kumar Pradhan
Aged about 34 years
Son of Amina Pradhan.
14. Parsuram @ Parsu Chhualsingh
Aged about 65 years
Son of Late Sanatan Chhualsingh.
All are of Village/P.O.: Bhagabatipur
P.S.: Tangi, Via: Kuhudi
Gram Panchayat: Sorona
District: Khordha. ... Petitioners
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Seccretary
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate
Khordha
At/PO/District: Khordha.
3. Sub-Collector
Khordha
At/PO/District: Khordha.
4. Tahasildar, Chilika
At/PO: Chilika
District: Khordha.
5. Superintendent of Police
Khordha
At/PO/District: Khordha.
6. I.I.C. Tangi Police Station
Tangi, At/PO: Tangi
District: Khordha.
7. Sarpanch
Sorona Gram Panchayat
At/PO: Sorona, Via: Kuhudi
District: Khordha.
8. Brajabandhu Sahoo
Aged about 55 years
Son of Late Biswanath Sahoo
9. Bhabani Shankar Harichandan
Aged about 45 years
Son of Late Harihar Harichandan
10. Mayadhar Harichandan
Aged about 32 years
Son of Late Harihar Harichandan
11. Murali Biswal
Aged about 55 years
Son of Late Halu Biswal.
12. Pabitra Rautray
Aged about 43 years`
Son of Late Laxmidhar Rautray.
13. Manju Swain
Aged about 40 years
Son of Late Kartika Swain.
14. Godabari Champati
Aged about 75 yars
Son of Late Sanatan Champati.
15. Minati Sahoo
Aged about 36 years
Wife of Hemant Sahoo.
16. Minati Behera
Aged about 35 years
Wife of Shesadev Behera.
17. Anita Sahoo
Aged about 60 years
Wife of Late Lochan Sahoo.
18. Hadubandhu Behera
Aged about 56 years
Son of Late Bhikari Behera.
19. Basant Kanarguru
Aged about 57 years
Wife of Rabi Kanarguru.
20. Mamata Jena
Aged about 37 years
Wife of Satyanarayan Jena.
21. Baijanti Pradhan
Aged about 38 years
Wife of Muli Pradhan.
22. Swarnalata Routray
Aged about 42 years
Wife of Rabindra Kalasi.
23. Udayanath Paikray
aged about 65 years
son of Late Kaibalya Paikray.
24. Fakir Patra
Aged about 52 years
Son of Late Bharat Patra.
25. Jayanta Patra
Aged about 38 years
Son of late Budhi Patra.
26. Saroj Kumar Abadhan
Aged about 42 years
Son of Naba Kishore Pradhan.
27. Lochan Paikray
Aged about 62 years
Son of Late Jagannath Paikaray.
The petitioners, claiming to be residents of Village
Bhagabatipur under Soran Gram Panchayat, under
Tangi Police Station in the district of Khordha, filed the
present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation beseeching indulgence of this Court by issue of
writ of mandamus to the opposite party Nos.1 to 7, to
evict the encroachers-opposite party Nos.8 to 27 and
demolish unauthorised structures standing over the
Government land, particularly on Plot No.1793 in Sabik
Khata No.970 (corresponding to Plot No.2115 in Hal
Khata No.1096) covering an Area of Ac.03.430decs
situated in Bhagabatipur Mouza within the jurisdiction
of Chilika Tahasil, District: Khordha.
2. Facts adumbrated in the writ petition emanate that
encroachers have constructed permanent structures
over the aforesaid land having kissam: ―Gochar‖
[pasture] in ―Rakshit‖ [reserved] Khata1 recorded in the
name of "Odisha Government". The petitioners-villagers
apprised such fact to different authorities on very many
occasions right since 1990.
2.1. Considering the grievance of the petitioners/villagers,
the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi issued letter to Revenue
Inspector, Kuhudi citing letter vide Memo No.54(4),
dated 25th March, 1994 of Sarapanch, Soran Gram
Panchayat whereby he was instructed to visit the spot
and furnish the names of the encroachers along with
current status of case records. The Sub-Collector,
Khordha on receipt of complaint, issued letter No.253,
dated 7th April,1994 directing the Additional Tahasildar,
Tangi "to stop all these new constructions immediately"
03.12.2009, the villagers of Soran again moved the
Tahasildar, Chilika and also Sub-Collector, Khordha.
2.3. It is stated that the villagers also placed the aforesaid
facts before the Chief Minister in Grievance Cell on 28 th
September, 2007, responding to which the Under
Secretary to Chief Minister issued letter dated
28.11.2007 requesting the Collector and District
Magistrate, Khordha to look into the grievance. As all the
attempts went in vain, the villagers (petitioner No.1-Bijay
Kumar Maharana) filed representation dated 3rd April,
2010 before the learned Lokpal. Further grievance
petition dated 23rd March, 2011 was also submitted to
the learned Lokpal. Accordingly, a report was called for
from the Tahasildar concerned, who submitted a report
indicating institution of proceeding against the
encroachers, in consequence of which the learned
Lokpal discontinued proceeding and disposed of the
matter under Section 10(5) of the Odisha Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 1995 with observation that thirty-three
numbers of encroachment cases had been initiated.
Nevertheless, till date those encroachers have not been
evicted nor was any step taken to demolish the
unauthorised structures constructed by them.
2.4. The Tahasildar, Chilika vide letter No.937, dated 11th
April, 2013 submitted a report to the Sub-Collector,
Khordha, which reads as follows:
On the other hand, a case was filed before the Hon'ble
Lokapal vide case no.160LY(A)/10 by one Sri Bijay
Kumar Maharana, S/o-Arjun Maharana of Village Soran
with prayer for eviction of the Encroachment. Accordingly,
it was requested in the Letter under reference for
deployment of police force for smooth management of
eviction work but no force were deployed. On the other
hand, two years lapsed for which again show cause
notices as well as eviction notices have been issued to the
concerned encroachers with direction to vacate the
encroached land in the ends of public interest within 30
days from the date receipt of the eviction notice.
Hence, to make the eviction work success it is further
requested kindly to look into the matter personally and
the matter may be discussed with the Superintendent of
Police, Khordha for early deployment of one platoon police
force with lady police constable to carry out the eviction
work smoothly. The I.I.C., Tangi may also be intimated
accordingly.‖
2.5. While the matter stood thus, an information was sought
for under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in
response to which the following was supplied:
"In mouza-Bhagabatipur, Khata No.1096, Plot
No.2115, Area-Ac.3.245dec. There are 33
Encroachment Cases bearing No.8/2010 to 48/2010
have been booked under OPLE Act. Consequent
upon receipt of the ‗G' Memos from R.I., Kuhudi on
17.08.2010. Subsequently, penalty and assessment
were realized from each encroacher on 16.09.2010
and eviction notices were issued to all the
encroachers in each case with direction to evict the
encroached govt. land within 30 days from the date
of receipt of the eviction notice as per provision made
in OPLE Act. The said eviction notices were served
upon the encroachers.
2. Since the aforesaid encroachers did not vacate the
encroached land. The Sub Collector, Khordha was
requested for deployment of police force with lady
Constable to carry out the eviction work as per
humble instruction of the Lokpal in Lokpal Case
No.160LY(A)/10 filed by Sri Bijay Kumar Maharana
of village Soran before the Hon'ble Lokpal vide this
Office Letter No.1823/, dt.01.11.2010 and
No.583/dt.21.05.2011 but due to non deployment of
police force the eviction work could not taken up with
a view to law and order situation.
3. Later on after re-organization of the R.I. circles
Mouza-Bhagabatipur comes under the jurisdiction of
R.I. Jaripada for which he was asked to cause and
enquiry on eviction of the aforesaid encroached land
vide this Office Letter No.1546/dt. 07.09.2012. On
the other hand, R.I., Jaripada submitted his enquiry
report vide his Letter No.1302/dt.26.11.2012 stating
that the encroachers have not evicted the
encroached land for which notices were again
issued to each encroacher fixing to dt.12.03.2013.
The ends of Govt. interest as well as to avoid the
leakage of Govt. revenue and the caustic remarks of
the Board Audit, Penalty and Assessment were
again realized from each encroacher from the last
two years and on the other hand eviction notices
have also issued in each case with direction to the
encroacher to vacate the Govt. encroached land
within the stipulated time. Report from the R.I.
concerned in the matter is awaited.‖
2.6. All these incidents and perseverance of the villagers
since many years did not yield any fruitful result, which
has given rise to filing of the present writ petition in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation in the year 2014.
3. This Court vide order dated 8th May, 2014 having issued
notice to opposite party No.2-Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Khordha, a counter affidavit has come to be
filed by the opposite parties through opposite party No.4
(Tahasildar, Chilika), which reveals that thirty-three (33)
numbers of Encroachment Cases against unauthorized
occupants of Government land(s) have been instituted
and it is contemplated to proceed with demolition of
structures of permanent nature thereon. It is also
affirmed that the Tahasildar has already passed eviction
orders. It is asserted that "on verification of the original
Records of Right available in Tahasil Office, it is found
that no such correction as required under various
paragraphs of Odisha Mutation Manual has been done
over the Khata, Plot & Area by any Tahasildar till date,
hence the area is intact as usually recorded in the Hal
Khata i.e. Ac.3.590‖. It has also been affirmed by the
deponent that ―for each individual case after observing
all formalities under the various provisions laid down
under OPLE Act, 1972 (Odisha Prevention of Land
Encroachment Act, 1972) and Rules made therein and
now that 24 years have already passed from date of
allegation of villagers against the then Tahasildar, i.e.,
1990/other authorities for their inaction in redressing
their grievance, hence no action may be taken by the
higher authority against the then the Tahasildar and
other authority at this point of time‖. In the said counter
affidavit dated 30th September, 2014, it has been
impressed upon that "actual eviction work of the
encroachers over the Gochar land shall be carried out by
the undersigned and sufficient number of force by the
Superintendent of Police, Khordha and I.I.C., Tangi for the
eviction work for maintenance of law and order/may be
deployed after disposal of the case by the Hon'ble Court‖.
4. This Court vide order dated 30th October, 2014 having
taken cognizance of assertions and affirmation as made
in the counter affidavit disposed of the instant writ
petition with the following order:
"***
Ordered accordingly.
The petitioners would submit a certified copy of this order
before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khurda
within a period of one week herefrom and if the same is
done, the said authority would ensure in coordination
with the other authorities as may be considered
necessary that the eviction of 33 encroachers with their
constructions on the land mentioned hereinabove is
undertaken, as expeditiously as possible and not later
than six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.
The petition stands allowed in the above terms.‖
4.1. Challenging the said order dated 30th October, 2014, Sri
Brajabandhu Sahoo (opposite party No.8 herein) and
others approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in SLP(C) No.21067 of 2014, which came to be dismissed
on 17th December, 2014 with the following order:
"Taken on board.
Dismissed.‖
4.2. However, a review petition, bearing RVWPET No.227 of
2014, has been filed for recalling of the order dated 30th
October, 2014 passed in WP(C) No.7824 of 2014. This
Court upon hearing the review petitioners noticed that
the order dated 30th October, 2014 was a direction to
evict thirty-three encroachers to the Collector, Khordha.
Since these encroachers were not impleaded as parties
in the writ petition, following well settled legal position
as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Kunhaymmed Vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 that
―in limine dismissal of the SLP at the very first haring
does not mean a confirmation of the order of the High
Court against which such SLP is filed‖, this Court held as
follows:
"***
11. Once it is plain that the writ petitioners were seeking
orders against such ‗encroachers' it was imperative
for them to be impleaded as parties to the writ
petition. No order adverse to such persons could
have been passed without giving them an
opportunity of being heard. This is irrespective of the
fact that they may have been heard in the
proceedings initiated under the OPLE Act.
12. On that short ground, this Court recalls and reviews
the order dated 30th October, 2014 passed in WP(C)
No.7824 of 2014 and restores WP(C) No.7824 of
2014 to file.
13. The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.‖
4.3. Accordingly, the present writ petition being restored to
its position, the encroachers-opposite party Nos.8 to 27
were arrayed as opposite parties.
4.4. Opposite party Nos.8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23
and 24 ("encroachers", for short) filed counter affidavit
on 5th January, 2024 alleging that petitioner Nos.1 to 14
are encroachers of the Government land and submitted
that the Government is required to take action not only
against thirty-three encroachers as projected by the
Tahasildar, but also is under obligation to initiate action
against the other encroachers in exercise of powers
conferred under the Odisha Prevention of Land
Encroachment Act, 1972. The following paragraph is
found contained in the counter-affidavit:
―That in view of fact stated in the paragraph 18 of the
writ petition needs no reply as the writ petition is not
maintainable. The State Government being owner of land
can take action under OPLE Act against all 400
encroachers. This Court cannot direct for selective
approach.‖
5. By way of an affidavit dated 16th August, 2023 sworn to
by the Tahasildar, Chilika a copy of field enquiry report
in connection with the present case qua status of Plot
Nos.2115 and 2121 in Khata No.1096, Mouza-
Bhagabatipur has been submitted.
6. The matter came up for hearing on many occasions and
the arguments have been advanced by counsel for
respective parties and the matter is heard finally.
6.1. On conclusion of hearing, the matter was kept reserved
for preparation and pronouncement of judgment vide
Order dated 15.10.2025.
6.2. Heard Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior
Advocate along with Ms. K.T. Mudali, learned Advocate
for the petitioners and Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, learned
Government Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.1
to 7 and Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath, learned Advocate for
opposite parties-encroachers. At the request of the
Court, Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India appeared and participated in
the hearing of the present matter.
7. The Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972,
has been promulgated in the State of Odisha with effect
from the 29th day of October, 1954 with an avowed
purpose to prevent unauthorized occupation of property
of the Government. The provisions of this Act are
applicable to prevent persons from occupying the
Government lands. Nonetheless, in certain cases the
Government land can be settled in favour of such
persons who have been unauthorizedly occupying the
Government lands subject to provisions of Section 72.
Thus the provisions of the said Act being summary in
2 Section 7 of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act reads as follows:
―7. Summary eviction, forfeiture and fine.--
(1) Any person unauthorisedly occupying land for which he is liable to pay
assessment under Section 4 shall be summarily evicted by the Tahasildar
and any crop or other product raised on the land, any encroachments
such as a building, other construction or anything deposited thereon shall
be liable to forfeiture:
Provided that in case of said encroachments the Tahasildar shall give
reasonable notice to remove the same.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1)--
(a) where any land is in the unauthorised occupation of a landless
person, the Tahsildar may instead of evicting such person from the
land in his authorised occupation, settle the same with him, so
however, the land so settled with him together with the land
excluding homestead, if any owned by him and the lands owned
by all the members of his family who are living with him in
common mess, shall, on no account, exceed one standard acre and
shall not include more than one-tenth of an acre of land which is
being utilised or can be utilised for purposes of homestead;
and
(b) where any land is in the unauthorised occupation of a
homesteadless person, which is being utilised by him as
homestead, the Tahasildar shall, instead of evicting such person,
settle the same with him, so however, that the land so settled with
him shall not exceed one-tenth of an acre.
Provided that no such settlement shall be made if the land belongs to any
of the following categories namely:
(a) lands recorded as Gochar, Rakhit, or Sarbasadharan in any
record-of-rights prepared under any law;
(b) lands which are--
(i) set apart for the common use of villages;
(ii) used as house site, back-yard of temple-site whether or not
recorded as such, in the record-of-rights;
(iii) likely to require for any development scheme and are
declared as such by the State Government by a
notification; and
(c) land belonging to an establishment of undertaking owned,
controlled or managed by-
(i) any State Government or a Department of such
Government;
(ii) any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of
the share capital is held by one or more State Government,
or
(iii) a corporation established by law which is owned,
controlled or managed by any State Government:
Provided further that where the land in the unauthorized occupation, of a
person is situated within a Municipality or a Notified Area constituted
under the Orissa Municipal Act, 23 of 1950:
(a) the settlement of land with such person shall be made by the Sub-
Divisional Officer on a reference made to him in that behalf by the
Tahasildar;
(b) not more than one-tenth of an acre shall be settled and that such
settlement shall be made only where--
(i) neither the person nor any member of his family living with
him in common mess owns a house or house-site anywhere
in the State; or
(ii) the land being adjacent to the holding owned by the person
is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of such holding or
for the residential purpose of the person and is not
reserved for the purpose of any Government or for any
development purpose; and
(c) the settlement shall not take effect until--
(i) the order for settlement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer
is confirmed by the Collector of the district; and
(ii) the person in favour of whom the settlement is made,
makes payment of the market value of the land assessed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the manner prescribed by
Rules made under this Act
Provided also that on failure, of payment of the market value within the
time fixed by the Sub-divisional Officer, the person in unauthorised
occupation of the land shall be liable to be summarily evicted from the
land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to Sub-Section (2),
where any land specified under the said proviso except those classified
Gochar, Rakhshit or Sarbasadharan and used as burial ground,
Government premises, tanks, roads and public places of worship is in the
unauthorised occupation of any homesteadless person and who is using
its as homestead and residing thereon by constructing a house on or
before the 10th March, 1985, the Tahasildar shall instead of evicting such
person, settle the same with him so, however, that the land so settled with
him shall not exceed one twenty-fifth of an acre;
(3) If such a person fails to remove the encroachment within the time specified
in the notice, the Tahasildar may in his discretion, in addition to the order
of forfeiture, impose a fine which may extend to fifty rupees and a daily
fine of rupees ten until the encroachment has been removed:
Provided that the aggregate of the fines payable under this subsection
shall in no event exceed an amount equal to twice the market value of the
encroachment land;
Provided further that subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the
Collector may, in suitable cases, either reduce or remit the amount
payable by the way of fine under this sub-section.
(4) Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Tahasildar and
any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Tahasildar may
direct.
(5) An eviction under this section shall be made by serving a notice in the
manner provided in Section 9 on the person reported to be in occupation or
his agent requiring him within such time as the Tahasildar may deem
reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land and if such
notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate officer to
remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same.
(6) If the Officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by
any person, the Tahasildar] shall hold a summary inquiry into the fact of
the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without
any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may
issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance
may send him with a warrant in the form appended to Schedule I for
nature and any person unauthorizedly occupying any
land which is the property of the Government as defined
under Section 23 of the Act can be summarily evicted by
imprisonment in the civil jail of the District for a period not exceeding thirty
days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such resistance
or obstruction.‖
3 Section 2 of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 stands
thus:
―Property of Government.--
Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the following
classes of lands are hereby declared to be the property to Government for the
purposes of this Act, namely:
(a) all public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and
fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and
creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and
tanks and all canals and water sources and all standing and flowing
water and all lands including temple sites, house sites or backyards
wherever situated, save in so far as the same are the property--
(i) of any Ruler of an Indian State merged with the State of Orissa,
Zamindar, Proprietor, Sub-Proprietor, Landlord, Jagirdar,
Khoropshdar or any other tenure holder or any person claiming
through or holding under any of them; or
(ii) of any person paying shist, kattubadi jodi, porupu or quit rent to
any of the aforesaid person; or
(iii) of any person holding under raiyatwari tenure or in any way
subject to the payment of cess or any other dues direct to
Government; or
(iv) of any other registered holder of land having proprietary right; or
(v) of any other person holding land under grant from Government
otherwise than by way of licence;
(b) land belonging to or vesting in any local authority which is used or
intended to be used for any public purpose such as a road, canal,
embankment, tank or ghat or for the repair or maintenance of such road,
canal, embankment, tank or ghat;
(c) land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or
under similar Acts for the purposes of any local authority, company owned
or controlled by the State Government, Statutory Body or Corporation
while such land remains as the property of the local authority, company
owned or controlled by the State Government, Statutory Body or
Corporation;
(d) immovable property claimed by the Rulers of merged territories but
conceded in their favour; and
(e) land belonging to an establishment or undertaking owned, controlled or
managed by--
(i) any State Government or a Department of such Government;
(ii) any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the share
capital is held by one or more State Government; or
(iii) a corporation established by law which is owned, controlled or
managed by any State Government.
Explanation.--
In this section ‗high water mark' means the highest point reached by ordinary
spring-tides at any season of the year‖
the competent authority from the said land. However
before summary proceeding of eviction a reasonable
opportunity of hearing is extended to the person
occupying the land. Under the scheme of the Act
proceedings can be initiated if it is seen that there has
been encroachment of Government lands either by
construction of house or otherwise.
7.1. The term "encroachment" has not been defined in the
statute. To comprehend what exactly "encroachment" is
resort may be had to meaning ascribed to it in
Dictionary4.
7.2. The Black's Law Dictionary defines the word
"encroachment" as:
―Encroach.-- To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the
possessions or rights of another; to trespass; intrude.
Miami Corporation Vrs. State, 186 La. 784, 173 So. 315,
318. To gain unlawfully upon the lands, property, or
authority of another; as if one man presses upon the
grounds of another too far, or if a tenant owe two shillings
rent-service, and the lord exact three. So, too, the
Spencers were said to encroach the king's authority.
Blount; Plowd. 94a.
4 The dictionary meaning of a word cannot be looked at where the word has been
statutorily defined or judicially interpreted. But where there is no such
definition or interpretation, the Courts may take aid of dictionaries to ascertain
the meaning of a word in common parlance. In doing so the Court must bear in
mind that a word is used in different senses according to its context and a
dictionary gives all the meanings of a word and the Court has, therefore, to
select the particular meaning which is relevant to the context in which it has to
interpret that word. [State of Odisha Vrs. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited,
AIR 1985 SC 1293 = (1985) 3 SCR 26 = 1985 (Supp.) SCC 280].
Encroachment.-- An encroachment upon a street or
highway is a fixture, such as a wall or fence, which
illegally intrudes into or invades the highway or incloses a
portion of it, diminishing its width or area, but without
closing it to public travel. State Vrs. Scott, 82 N.H. 278,
132 A. 685, 686.
In the law of easements. Where the owner of an easement
alters the dominant tenement, so as to impose an
additional restriction or burden on the servient tenement,
he is said to commit an encroachment. Sweet.‖
7.3. Thus, it is unambiguous that encroachment is an
offence. Encroachment would amount to a criminal
trespass into the property belongs to another.
"Encroachment" may mean unauthorised occupation of
land and public land by way of putting temporary, or
permanent structure for residential or commercial use or
any other use.
7.4. The land encroachment is a social evil. Encroachment is
a passive form of land grab contrivance, which reflects
innate greed for land and natural tendency towards
aggrandizement of wealth in any form. Encroachment of
Government property is a loss not only for the
Government but also the public, as huge amount of
money would be spent again to acquire new property.
7.5. The Government lands are for the welfare of the public
in general and to create common infrastructure for the
usage and benefit of the people. The matter of
encroachment of Government land cannot be treated
casually or in cavalier manner. It ought to be treated as
a grave offence against the State. Hence, any intruder is
liable not only to be prosecuted under the criminal/
penal law but also initiated with proceeding under the
Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act.
7.6. At this juncture following observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rame Gowda Vrs.
M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 may gainfully be
referred to:
―8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is
concerned the person in peaceful possession is
entitled to retain his possession and in order to
protect such possession he may even use reasonable
force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who
has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may
retake possession if he can do so peacefully and
without the use of unreasonable force. If the
trespasser is in settled possession of the property
belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner
shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take
the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or
interfere with his possession. The law will come to
the aid of a person in peaceful and settled
possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from
using force or taking law in his own hands, and also
by restoring him in possession even from the rightful
owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if
the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by
use of force. In the absence of proof of better title,
possession or prior peaceful settled possession is
itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession
to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any
property may prevent even by using reasonable
force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when
it is in the process of being committed, or is of a
flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or
casual in nature, or has just been committed, while
the rightful owner did not have enough time to have
recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the
possession of the trespasser, just entered into would
not be called as one acquiesced to by the true
owner.‖
7.7. In Poona Ram Vrs. Moti Ram, (2019) 1 SCR 671 it is said
that:
―*** a person who asserts possessory title over a
particular property will have to show that he is under
settled or established possession of the said property. But
merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give
such a right against the true owner. Settled possession
means such possession over the property which has
existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been
acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of
possession does not have the effect of interrupting the
possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass,
or a possession which has not matured into settled
possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true
owner even by using necessary force. Settled possession
must be:
(i) effective,
(ii) undisturbed, and
(iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any
attempt at concealment by the trespasser.
There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine
settled possession. Occupation of a property by a person
as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the
owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The
possession should contain an element of animus
possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is
to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of
each case.‖
8. Regard being had to the position of law with the facts of
the case as jotted down herein before, it is surfaced that
the Government land in question having Kissam: Gochar
[Rakshit] stands recorded in the name of Government. In
the Record-of-Rights (Annexure-1) the land had been
recorded as Gochar [Rakshit]. No material is available on
record to establish to the contrary that the land was
either expressly or impliedly not set apart for the
common use of the villagers5. Said property of the
Government has been occupied by the encroachers.
Upon submission of Field Enquiry Report, notices have
been issued and necessary orders have been passed for
eviction by the Tahasildar6. The Tahasildar concerned
5 For clarity, vide: Manmohan Rout (And after him) Sundari Devi Vrs. State of
Odisha, 1992 SCC OnLine Ori 148 = 74 (1992) CLT 454.
6 Section 9 of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act reads as follows:
―9. Prior notice to person in unauthorised occupation.--
Before taking proceedings under Section 4, Section 6 or Section 7 the
Tahasildar shall cause to be served on the person reported to be in
unauthorized occupation of the property of Government, a notice
specifying the land so occupied and calling him to show cause before a
certain date as to why he should not be proceeded against under Section
also sought for providing protection of police in order to
carry out eviction drive and demolition of structures over
the Government land.
8.1. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Srikar Kumar Rath,
learned Advocate representing the opposite parties, it is
not denied that they are encroachers; rather, at
paragraph 4 thereof it has been asserted that the
petitioners are encroachers over the Government land.
What is essentially pleaded by the learned Advocate
representing these encroachers is that if steps are taken
against these opposite parties for eviction and demolition
of structures, the petitioners are also liable to be treated
in the similar fashion without any discrimination.
Evasive denial being made by these opposite parties in
their counter affidavit, it is perceived that they have not
refuted to have encroached the Government land in
question. What emanates from above submissions
advanced by the counsel for the opposite parties that
there is no explanation, much less, justification from
these opposite parties who have clearly encroached the
Government land demarcated for "Gochar" in Rakshit
Khata, unauthorizedly and illegally.
8.2. To such submission, the learned Senior Advocate
acceded to and would submit that whoever is in
4, Section 6 or Section 7. Such notice shall be served in such manner as
the Government may, by rules or orders under Section 10 direct.‖
unauthorized possession over the Government land, the
State Government is empowered to take appropriate
action. In Akash Singh vrs. State of Odisha; W.P.(C)
No.26630 of 2025, vide order dated 30.10.2025 this
Court taking note of Letter No.RDM-LRGEB-POLICY-
0001-2024-21855/R&DM, dated 06/07/2024 of the
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management
regarding optimum management of Land Resources and
Removal of Encroachment and a letter No.RDM-LRGEB-
POLICY-0001-2024-31716/R&DM, dated 22/08/2025 of
said Department appreciated the action plan of
Government of Odisha on Eviction of Encroachment and
its prevention. In the said letter, policy is spelt out
regarding "no tolerance" to any encroachment over the
Government land and the timeline has been specified
therein to remove encroachment. The authorities are
expected to show alacrity in taking prompt steps by
adhering to the instructions contained in the above
referred letters of Revenue and Disaster Management.
8.3. It is pertinent to observe here that the authorities could
not pursue the matter to restore the Government land to
its original position despite order passed by the learned
Lokpal. In the case of Bijay Kumar Maharana Vrs.
Tahasildar, Chilika, Case No.160-LY(A) of 2010, vide
Order dated 26th March, 2012 it has been observed as
follows:
―3. The Tahasildar has submitted a report in the matter
inter alia stating that thirty three Encroachment
Cases have been started against the persons who
have encroached upon a piece of Government land
appertaining to Plot No.2115 of Khata No.1096
measuring Ac.3.245dec. of Mouza: Bhagabatipur.
Notices of eviction have already been issued to the
encroachers and steps will be taken to evict them in
accordance with law.
4. In view of the above report of the Tahasildar, it
cannot be held that the public servants concerned
were not taking any action against the persons who
have encroached upon Government land and as
such it cannot be said to be mal-administration by
the public servants concerned.
5. Hence, further investigation is discontinued and the
matter is disposed of under Section 10(5) of the
Odisha Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995.‖
8.4. Though such observation was made in the year 2012, as
yet step could not be taken by the Tahasildar, Chilika for
eviction. As it appears in the case of Brajabandhu Sahoo
Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.23099 of 2015, interim
order has been passed on 08.01.2016 to the following
effect:
08.01.2016
Two extra copies of the Writ Petition be served on learned
Addl. Government Advocate, who will obtain instruction in
this matter.
Status quo as on date in respect of Plot No.2115
measuring an area of Ac.3.430dec. at Mouza-
Bhagabatipur Tahasil, Chilika shall be maintained by the
parties till next listing.
Put up this matter on 05.02.2016‖
8.5. Vacating said interim order while disposing of aforesaid
writ petition, it has been ordered on 12.01.2023 that
―The status quo order dated 8th January, 2016 is vacated
since there is already a corresponding order passed today
by this Court in the restored W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014."
8.6. At the stage of hearing, Sri Kailash Chandra Kar,
learned Government Advocate furnished a copy of letter
No.1348/Rev., dated 11th March, 2025 issued by the
Tahasildar, Chilika addressed to the Sub-Collector,
Khordha, which reads as under:
"To
The Sub-Collector, Khordha.
Sub: Deployment of adequate police personnel and
deployment of Executive Magistrate for eviction of
encroached area of Mz. Bhagabatipur and Soran
under Soran G.P.
Sir,
In inviting the subject and reference cited above, I would
request you for deployment of adequate police force for
eviction of encroached area of Mz. Bhagabatipur and
Soran under Soran G.P. on dated 17/03/2025 at 10.00
AM onwards.
Further you are requested to kindly intimate to the
Superintendent of Police, Khordha to deploy adequate
police personnel and deployment of Executive Magistrate
to avoid apprehension of breach of peace and maintain
law and order situation at the time of eviction.
This is for favour of your kind information and necessary
action.‖
8.7. He also drew attention of this Court to another copy of
letter No.RDM-LRGEB-POLICY-0001-2024-21835/R&
DM, dated 05.07.2024 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government of Odisha in Revenue and
Disaster Management Department addressed to the
Collectors, which reads as under:
"*** With reference to the subject cited above, I am to say
that concerns have been raised by Government on large
scale encroachments at a high level meeting. It is
pertinent to mention that one of our primary work is
optimum management of land resources and allocation of
adequate land to developmental purpose & different
sectors of economy. However, due to encroachment of
Government land in both urban and rural areas, at times,
smooth allocation of land for developmental purpose is
impaired. Moreover, the opportunity cost of encroached
Government land is unrealized in such cases. Also, the
concomitant litigation arising out of illegal encroachment
remains a challenge to all of us.
Hence, you are requested to make a realistic survey of
rural and urban encroachments and remove
encroachments as per extant rules. Consequent upon
removal of such encroachments, you are further requested
to protect such Government land by suitable fence and
conspicuously displayed board by utilizing the funds
received in your district for the same purpose. In case of
inadequacy of fund for the same purpose, the same may
be communicated to this Department immediately.
An action taken report on the above shall be sent to this
Department on each fortnight in the enclosed pro forma.
This may be treated as ―most urgent‖.‖
8.8. A feeble argument has been advanced by Sri Srikar
Kumar Rath, Advocate relying on paragraph 14 of the
counter affidavit that the encroachers have been in
possession of land for more than 30 years7. Nonetheless,
the documents enclosed to the writ petition demonstrate
that the petitioners-villagers have been agitating the
issue of encroachment on the Gochar land since 1990.
Notwithstanding order of the Sub-Collector injuncting
further constructions way back in the year 1994, it
appears the authorities have paid deaf ears and their
lackadaisical approach in not attending to the gravity of
7 Section 8A of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act stands thus:
―8-A. Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years.--
(1) Where in the course of any proceeding instituted under Sections 4, 6, 7 or
8 against any person unauthorisedly occupying any land it is proved by
such person that he has been in actual, continuous and undisputed
occupation of the land for more than thirty years by the date of institution
of the proceeding, the Tahasildar shall refer the case to the Sub-Divisional
Officer.
(2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-Section (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall given the Department of the State Government (other than the
Revenue Department) to which the land belongs, an opportunity to show
cause against the settlement of the land may make such further enquiry
as he deems necessary.
(3) If after making such enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied that
such person has been in such occupation of the land as aforesaid, he may
by order, settle the land with him and every such settlement shall be
subject to such conditions, regarding assessment and payment of rent
(including arrears of rent) as may be prescribed by rules under this Act.‖
situation appears to have caused prejudice to the
Government. It is pertinent to bear in mind that field
inquiry being conducted by Tahasildar, Chilika,
Additional Tahasildar, Chilika, Revenue Supervisor,
Chilika, Revenue Inspector, Sananairi and Revenue
Inspector, Soran, pursuant to direction of this Court in
the W.P.(C) No.23093 of 2015, it has come to fore that
the instant encroachers are not entitled to be settled
with the Government land under the Odisha
Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. This Court also
takes note of protection granted to the encroachers by
way of interim orders. Dealing with the Government land
the authority concerned is required to take into account
the entitlements of others. Whatever approach is taken,
the foundational aspect to be kept in view is on larger
public interest rather than focusing on private rights. To
allow encroachment upon Government land would be to
negate the rights of common citizenry having bearing on
public trust.
8.9. Explaining the "Public Trust Doctrine" in T.K.
Shanmugam Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 9343 = AIR 2016 Mad 25 the Full Bench of Madras
High Court made the following observations:
―32. Whatever approach is taken, the fundamental
emphasis is on communal rather than private rights.
In cases where communal rights protector negates
the rights of some, it implies a denial of the
application of the Public Trust Doctrine. Natural
resources have traditionally been found either under
the sovereignty of a particular state or in the so-
called global commons. Where the resources are held
by a State, the essence of the Public Trust Doctrine is
that the State or Governmental authority, as trustee,
has a fiduciary duty of stewardship of the public's
‗environmental capital'. Thus it is the duty of the
State to protect, conserve and augment traditional
water retaining structures.
33. The Supreme Court of the United States of America
in Illinois Central Railroad Co. Vrs. People of the
State of Illinois, 146 US 387 = 36 LEd 1018 (1892),
pointed out that the State holds title to the bed of
navigable waters upon a public trust, and no
alienation or disposition of such property by the
State which does not recognise and is not in
execution of this trust, is permissible.
34. In Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970),
Pages 471-566, Prof. Sax said that three types of
restrictions on Governmental authority are often
thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine,
namely:
‗1. the property subject to the trust must not only
be used for a public purpose, but it must be
held available for use by the general public;
2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash
equivalent;
3. the property must be maintained for particular
types of use
(i) either traditional uses, or
(ii) some uses particular to that form of
resources.'
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action Vrs. Union of India, (1996) 5
SCC 281, held that there should not be development
at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there
should be development while taking due care and
ensuring the protection of environment.
36. Thus, the public trust doctrine requires that natural
resources such as lakes, ponds etc., are held by the
State as a ‗trustee' of the public and can be
disposed of only in a manner that is consistent with
the nature of such a trust.‖
8.10. Admittedly, the property in question is Government land
having kissam: Gochar in Rakshit Khata. Bearing in
mind the present writ petition at the behest of villagers
to remove encroachment over the Government land was
pending, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.23099 of
2015 filed at the behest of the opposite parties-
encroachers. It may be worthwhile to have reference to
paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of aforesaid
encroachers/opposite parties, wherein it has been
asserted that documents filed in W.P.(C) No.23099 of
2015 be treated as part of counter affidavit filed in the
instant writ petition. On verification, it could be
ascertained that said writ petition got disposed of vide
Order dated 12.01.2023. Said Order is as follows:
―1. This writ petition had been filed during the pendency
of RVWPET No.227 of 2014 filed by these writ-
petitioners. Today the said review petition has been
allowed and the order which was sought to be
reviewed therein i.e. the order dated 30th October,
2014 in W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014, has been recalled
by this Court. That writ petition has been restored to
file impleading the writ petitioners herein as
Opposite Parties.
2. In view of the above developments, the present writ
petition need not be entertained by this Court and it
is, accordingly, disposed of.
3. The status quo order dated 8th January, 2016 is
vacated since there is already a corresponding order
passed today by this Court in the restored W.P.(C)
No.7824 of 2014.‖
8.11. Since on consideration of gamut of factual scenario, this
Court vacated order of status quo granted in favour of
the opposite parties-encroachers in W.P.(C) No.23099 of
2015, and said writ application being disposed of,
present matter is considered on its own merits.
8.12. This Court is concerned about the situation of the
persons who are encroachers having illegal structures on
the Government/public land. Accordingly, no protection
can be granted to the encroachers under such gross and
glaring facts and circumstances of the case. Doing so
would tantamount to grant of premium on illegality
which the law would never permit.
8.13. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vrs. Nawab Khan
Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121 it has been stated as
follows:
30. Encroachment of public property undoubtedly
obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology
and sanitation. Public property needs to be
preserved and protected. It is but the duty of the
State and local bodies to ensure the same. This
would answer the second question. As regards the
fourth question, it is to reiterate that judicial review
is the basic structure of the Constitution. Every
citizen has a fundamental right to redress the
perceived legal injury through judicial process. The
encroachers are no exceptions to that constitutional
right to judicial redressal. The constitutional court,
therefore, has a constitutional duty as sentinel on
the qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he
approaches the court for perceived legal injury,
provided he establishes that he has a right to
remedy. When an encroacher approaches the court,
the court is required to examine whether the
encroacher had any right and to what extent he
would be given protection and relief. In that behalf, it
is the salutary duty of the State or the local bodies
or any instrumentality to assist the court by placing
necessary factual position and legal setting for
adjudication and for granting/refusing relief
appropriate to the situation. Therefore, the mere fact
that the encroachers have approached the court
would be no ground to dismiss their cases. The
contention of the appellant-Corporation that the
intervention of the court would give impetus to the
encroachers to abuse the judicial process is
untenable. As held earlier, if the appellant-
Corporation or any local body or the State acts with
vigilance and prevents encroachment immediately,
the need to follow the procedure enshrined as an
inbuilt fair procedure would be obviated. But if they
allow the encroachers to remain in settled
possession sufficiently for a long time, which would
be a fact to be established in an appropriate case,
necessarily suitable procedure would be required to
be adopted to meet the fact-situation and that,
therefore, it would be for the respondent concerned
and also for the petitioner to establish the respective
claims and it is for the court to consider as to what
would be the appropriate procedure required to be
adopted in the given facts and circumstances.
31. It is true that in all cases it may not be necessary, as
a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he
should be provided with an alternative
accommodation at the expense of the State which if
given due credence, is likely to result in abuse of the
judicial process. But no absolute principle of
universal application would be laid in this behalf.
Each case is required to be examined on the given
set of facts and appropriate direction or remedy be
evolved by the court suitable to the facts of the case.
Normally, the Court may not, as a rule, direct that
the encroachers should be provided with an
alternative accommodation before ejectment when
they encroached public properties, but, as stated
earlier, each case requires examination and suitable
direction appropriate to the facts requires
modulation. Considered from this perspective, the
apprehensions of the appellant are without force.‖
8.14. Encroachments infringe the rights of all other citizen.
The constitutional rights of all other citizen in respect of
the public properties cannot be taken away by few
individuals on account of their greediness. This Court
does not encourage the actions of such strangers/
encroachers on public/Government land. It is growing
trend across the State that Government land has been
occupied by a few land grabbers and land mafias,
thereby obstructing the development of this nation as a
whole. On account of large scale encroachment, the
developmental activity of the State is being paralyzed.
The machinery/functionary of State Government is
bound to act vigilantly and no leniency need be shown in
respect of the encroachers and the authorities
competent are bound to invoke the provisions of the
Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 19728,
besides penal laws. There cannot be any leniency or
misplaced sympathy in respect of the encroachers. Any
lapses in this regard on the part of the authorities must
be viewed seriously. The authorities committing lapses,
negligence or dereliction of duty by way of any omission
or commission, must be taken note of and suitable
prosecution and appropriate disciplinary actions are also
to be initiated against all such officials, who all are
8 An Act to provide for prevention of unauthorised occupation of lands which are
the property of Government.
responsible for committing an act of negligence or
dereliction of duty.
8.15. Whether a direction can be issued for eviction and as to
whether such of those persons who have encroached
upon such Government lands have acquired any right
under the law relating to limitation or any policy of the
State where the Government in its wisdom decides to
confer certain right on such persons would depend upon
nature of claim and it is the domain of the authorities
concerned to decide or any other alternative forum
available for consideration of grievance of such persons/
encroacher. However, this much can be stated at this
stage in the present fact-situation that "Field inquiry
report in compliance of the Order No.4 dated 12.01.2023
in W.P.(C) No.23093 of 2015; Order No.05, dated
12.01.2023 in RVWPET No.227 of 2014, Order No.06 in
W.P.(C) No.7824 of 2014 of the Order No.07, Counter
No.1406 of 2014 of Honourable High Court of Orissa",
reveals the following fact:
―*** It was also found during enquiry that the encroachers
are not in distress condition and Odisha Government
Land Settlement Act, 1962 is not applicable to them due
to their financial condition. The sketch map and
photographs of the encroached plots found during the
enquiry is annexed for due perusal.‖
8.16. In view of the aforesaid events, it is abundantly clear
that the encroached land is in occupation of strangers
having no right, title and interest over the property. As is
transpired from the counter affidavit filed by the
opposite party Nos.1 to 7, steps appear to have been
taken for eviction of the encroachers and necessary
orders have been passed under the Odisha Prevention of
Land Encroachment Act and the contents of subsequent
letters which are placed at the time of hearing suggests
that the Tahasildar has already requisitioned for
adequate police protection to avoid breach of peace and
maintenance of law and order during course of action.
8.17. Therefore, perceiving no necessity to keep the writ
application pending any further, it is felt expedient to
direct as follows:
I. The Superintendent of Police, Khordha is directed
to deploy adequate numbers of police personnel on
the date(s) to be fixed by the Tahasildar, Chilika or
any other competent authority for eviction of
encroachers from the Government land in question;
II. In case adequate numbers of police personnel are
unavailable, upon instructions as assured by the
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, who
appeared before this Court on request, adequate
numbers of personnel of the Central Reserved
Police Force (CRPF) may be deployed to facilitate
eviction process on the date(s) specified by the
Tahasildar, Chilika or such other officer empowered
in this regard for such purpose.
III. Needless to say that the authority concerned shall
ensure eviction of encroachers from the
Government land in accordance with law taking
into consideration the field enquiry report dated 2nd
August, 2023, as enclosed to affidavit dated 16th
August, 2023. He shall also adhere to the
instructions imparted in letter No.RDM-LRGEB-
POLICY-0001-2024-21835/R& DM, dated
05.07.2024 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government of Odisha in Revenue and
Disaster Management Department and also other
letters issued by said Department subsequently as
referred to supra.
IV. The authority shall also conduct further enquiry, if
necessary, and proceed with the matter by
undertaking eviction of the encroachers and
demolition of structures over the Government
lands.
V. It is expected that the authority shall complete the
entire exercise within a period of three months from
date.
9. Since counsel for the respective parties have agreed for
eviction of encroachers in accordance with law, this
Court expects parties to ensure coordination and
cooperation with the authorities, as may be necessary,
for the purpose of eviction of encroachers from the
Government land(s) and demolition of structures
thereon.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of. In consequence thereof,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of. In the circumstances there shall be no order
as to costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary in-charge) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, The 20th November, 2025//Bichi/MRS/Laxmikant
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Nov-2025 14:24:20
