Orissa High Court
Abasika Sangha vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 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: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 11164 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Abasika Sangha, Sector-13, CDA, .... Petitioner(s)
Cuttack
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirod Kumar Sahu, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv.
Along with Associates
Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
Along with Associates
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-25.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
restrain the Cuttack Development Authority from demolishing the
community hall in Sector-13, Cuttack, to regularize its construction, and
to ensure that no coercive action is taken without due notice and
hearing.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner, Abasika Sangha, Sector-13, is a registered residents'
welfare society that has filed a writ petition challenging the
announcement made by the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) on
04.04.2023 for demolition of a community hall located in Sector-13,
Abhinaba Bidanasi, Cuttack.
(ii) Sector-13 was developed as a residential project around the year 2000
under the CDA. Plot allotments were issued in phases between 2004 and
2007, but physical possession to the allottees was delayed until
approximately 2018.
(iii) The residents of the area formed Abasika Sangha, Sector-13 in 2015 to
collectively address delays, represent grievances before authorities, and
coordinate with CDA for infrastructure and civic amenities. The society
has since obtained registration under the Societies Registration Act,
1860.
(iv) According to the petitioner, CDA officials had identified around Ac. 0.02
dec. of land in the south-east corner of Hal Plot No. 51, Khata No. 330
(CDA Plot No. 13-3-K/CC/937P/U) for construction of a community hall,
which was earmarked for community use. However, no formal
allotment or lease was issued by CDA.
(v) The petitioner's community house was constructed on the above-
mentioned land with residents' contributions and has been used for
social and cultural gatherings. Official enquiry reports by the
Tahasildar, Baranga and Revenue Inspector between 2022 and 2023
confirmed that the land is recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi
(Government land not objectionable for settlement) and that the society
is functioning there.
(vi) The society obtained permanent electricity connection, conducts annual
public functions, and claims uninterrupted possession and community
use of the premises since construction.
(vii) The CDA Enforcement Squad made a public announcement in April
2023 declaring the structure illegal and indicating that demolition would
be carried out. The petitioner challenges this action as being without
notice or hearing.
(viii) In the counter affidavit, the CDA and State authorities state that the land
in question is undisputedly Government property and that the
petitioner has no ownership, leasehold, or legal right to construct or
occupy the site.
(ix) CDA asserts that the land forms part of a planned development zone
intended for a Kalyan Mandap and parking facilities to serve the
broader public, and that an alternative site has been identified for a
community centre for Sector-13 residents.
(x) The opposite parties characterize the petitioner's occupation as
unauthorized and contrary to developmental objectives, maintaining
that protecting or regularizing such occupation would impede CDA's
planned public works and contravene the law.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The impugned action of CDA is arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, and
violative of principles of natural justice, since no notice or hearing
preceded the demolition announcement. Even a trespasser cannot be
evicted without following due process of law; hence a registered
community society in settled possession cannot be dispossessed
summarily.
(ii) The community house was built on land earmarked in the Zonal
Development Plan for community use and recorded as Abadajogya
Anabadi; therefore, it does not violate the Odisha Development
Authorities Act (ODA) or Municipal laws. The construction was for the
public benefit and not for private gain.
(iii) The society's applications dated 12.03.2021 and 16.08.2021 under Section
15 of the ODA Act sought development permission for the community
hall. Since CDA failed to take any decision within the statutory time
limit, the permission must be deemed to have been granted by operation
of law. Hence, the construction cannot be treated as illegal.
(iv) The society is in juridical possession over the land and building,
functioning for more than five years, maintaining electricity connection,
and conducting community programs with government and police
permissions: facts acknowledged by official enquiry reports.
(v) The action of the CDA violates Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 21 of the
Constitution, depriving citizens of their collective right to association,
shelter, and community development without lawful procedure.
(vi) Even assuming procedural irregularity in construction, the authorities
have power to regularize the structure in the larger public interest rather
than demolish a public utility facility built through community effort.
(vii) Since the community hall serves a crucial socio-cultural function for
Sector-13 residents, its demolition would cause irreparable injury to
hundreds of households who depend on it for meetings, pujas, and
welfare activities, while offering no corresponding public benefit.
(viii) The action of withholding pension deposits has caused grave financial
hardship, depriving the petitioner of means for subsistence and his
daughter's marriage expenses, amounting to a violation of the right to
dignity under Article 21.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no legally
enforceable right over the Government land. The petitioner's admission
that title vests with the State extinguishes any claim to relief under
Article 226. Without ownership, lease, or possession sanctioned by law,
no fundamental or statutory right is violated.
(ii) The dispute raised involves questions of title and possession which are
issues of fact requiring detailed examination of records and evidence.
Such questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, which are
confined to questions of legality and procedure. Hence, the proper
remedy lies before a competent civil forum, not the High Court's writ
jurisdiction.
(iii) The petitioner's construction runs contrary to the developmental
objectives of the Cuttack Development Authority, which has planned
public amenities including a Kalyan Mandap and parking space on the
same land. Granting relief to the petitioner would obstruct these public
projects and undermine larger community interests.
(iv) CDA emphasizes that the alternate site provided for a community centre
adequately accommodates the petitioner's purpose and is located more
conveniently for the residents. Hence, the petitioner's insistence on
retaining the existing structure lacks justification.
(v) The petitioner is described as a rank trespasser on public land, whose
conduct amounts to illegal encroachment. The CDA relies on the
Supreme Court's ruling in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India1, wherein
the Court held that rewarding encroachers on public land undermines
rule of law and equates to "rewarding a pickpocket." By analogy,
protecting the petitioner would legitimize land-grabbing and frustrate
public administration.
(vi) Therefore, the CDA prays for dismissal of the writ petition on grounds
of absence of legal right, existence of disputed questions of fact,
obstruction to planned development, and encroachment on public
property, contending that no relief can be granted in equity or law to the
petitioner-society.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. The petitioner-society admits that the disputed plot is Government land,
with title vesting in the State. Its plea rests on protecting a community
hall built thereon. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is
invoked only for enforcement of legal or fundamental rights. As held by
this Court in the case of Lal Baba Dargha (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha
and Ors.2, the existence of structures for religious or public purposes
cannot legitimise unauthorised occupation of government land unless
(2000) 2 SCC 679
such occupation is regularised under law. Now amount of well-
intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions. 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 public premises, even
if purported to serve a public purpose, cannot be legitimised
unless regularised in accordance with law."
7. Likewise, the petitioner here has no title, lease or statutory sanction for
the hall. Mere identification of land for community purposes in a zonal
plan does not confer any proprietary or possessory right upon private
individuals or associations. The petitioner-society's continued
occupation, even if motivated by welfare considerations, therefore
remains unauthorized in the eye of law.
8. Though petitioners cite Sections 15-16 of the Odisha Development
Authorities Act (1982), this cannot cure the fundamental absence of legal
right. Under Section 15 no development is permitted without the
Authority's approval, and Section 16 requires an application for
permission before undertaking any building work. If the Authority fails
to decide within the prescribed time, such permission shall be deemed
to have been granted to the applicant.
9. Assuming arguendo that the society's applications dated 12.03.2021 and
16.08.2021 triggered this deemed-grant rule, it still remains that no lease
or allotment was executed. In effect, the petitioner held only a bare
licence to construct. Under our law even a licence-holder or squatters'
positional right ends once lawfully evicted by due process. The CDA's
plan foresees a Kalyan Mandap and parking on this land, which serves
a wider public need, and an alternate site has been offered for the
community. Granting permanent occupancy here would thwart the
approved development plan.
10. Nonetheless, mere lack of title does not free the State from complying
with due process. It is now well‐settled that even a trespasser cannot be
evicted without notice and an opportunity to be heard. This Court in the
case of Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Orissa3 had
faulted the officials for undue haste and lack of any show-cause notice
before demolition. This Court invoked the Supreme Court's Demolition
of Structures guidelines (2025), and held that forcible dispossession
without due process violated Article 300-A of the Constitution. It
stressed that executive action must be fair, transparent and within legal
bounds, not bulldozer justice. The relevant excerpts of the judgment are
produced below:
"What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition,
but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive
action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and
executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional,
it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law,
process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found
burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy
to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable,
so does the public's faith in the neutrality of governance. This
Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost
here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a
shield against arbitrariness."
11. Applying these principles, this Court finds that the petitioner's
occupancy is unauthorised but the CDA's demolition notice was issued
2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2593.
without any prior hearing. The society's allegations and official reports
show the hall was used continuously for over five years with an
electricity connection and public functions. Under these circumstances,
the CDA should first have issued a formal eviction notice or show‐cause,
affording the society a hearing and time to respond. The mandatory
procedures under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and
Public Premises Eviction Act must be followed.
12. That said, the petitioner has not established any legal right to occupy the
land itself. Its only "right" is the permission, if any, to erect a building,
not to hold the land permanently. Even occupations for social or
religious purposes must yield to statutory mandates. The petitioners'
reliance on any deemed sanction under Section 16(8) cannot override the
fact that they never obtained a lease or allotment under ODA or its rules.
V. CONCLUSION:
13. In sum, the matter falls within facts and title, but it also raises the
question whether CDA acted arbitrarily. This Court finds that the CDA's
intended demolition was premature and violative of natural justice.
However, once proper procedure is followed, the petitioners cannot
claim a vested right in government land.
14. The Writ Petition is dismissed on merits. The CDA (and other
authorities) may proceed to remove the structure, but only by strictly
following the law: they must issue appropriate notices of trespass or
eviction, allow the petitioner a hearing, and consider any application for
settlement or lease.
15. In particular, if any permission under the ODA Act was deemed
granted, the CDA shall clarify the conditions thereof, including payment
of development fees, before ordering demolition.
16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st Oct, 2025
