Orissa High Court

Prafulla Kumar Nayak 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: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No. 1460 of 2021

        (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
        Constitution of India, 1950).

         Prafulla Kumar Nayak                       ....               Petitioner(s)
                                         -versus-
         State of Odisha and Ors.                   ....        Opposite Party (s)


      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

         For Petitioner(s)           :                Mr. Anjan Ku. Biswal, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Pradeep Kumar Das, Adv.

         For Opposite Party (s)      :                   Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA

                  CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                        DATE OF HEARING:-22.10.2025
                       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

quash the impugned eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the

Tahasildar, Bonth, and to restrain the authorities from evicting him from

his lawfully purchased and mutated property pending adjudication of

the case.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The dispute pertains to land situated under Khata No. 919, Plot No.

1626/3080 of Mouza Bonth, District Bhadrak, measuring Ac. 0.01 dec.,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

which the petitioner claims to have purchased through a registered Sale

Deed No. 00610 dated 25.10.2011 from vendors Gouranga Sahu, Subal

Sahu, and Teru Sahu. The petitioner asserts that he has been in peaceful

possession of the said land since 2011 and has constructed a double-

storied residential building thereon.

(ii) After the purchase, the petitioner claims to have mutated the land in his

favour and converted its kisam from "Bagayat-III" to "Homestead"

under Section 8(A) of the Odisha Land Reforms Act in OLR Misc. Case

No. 134/2015. He has also been paying rent for the said land, which was

accepted by the revenue authorities.

(iii) The Tahasildar, Bonth, issued a notice dated 08.01.2021 directing the

petitioner to vacate the said land within three days, alleging

unauthorized occupation of abated Government land measuring Ac.

0.01 dec., which stands recorded in the name of the Purta Bibhaga under

Khata No. 919, Plot No. 1626/3080, Kisam "Rasta."

(iv) The petitioner contends that the notice is arbitrary and illegal, having

been issued without consideration of his Sale Deed, mutation records,

and long-standing possession, while the Tahasildar maintains that the

notice was issued in respect of land already acquired by the Government

for construction of the Bhadrak-Anandapur State Highway (S.H. 53) in

Land Abatement Case No. 35/2009.

(v) According to the Tahasildar, compensation for the acquired land was

paid to the recorded tenants, including the petitioner's vendors, in 2009,

and due to multiple abatement cases under the same project, there was

a delay in updating the Record of Rights (ROR). During that period, the

sale to the petitioner allegedly took place.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vi) The Tahasildar further asserts that both the petitioner and his vendor

were neighbours and aware of the acquisition proceedings, and that

public announcements were made asking occupants to vacate the

acquired land. It is alleged that the petitioner not only purchased Ac.

0.01 dec. but also encroached upon an adjoining Ac. 0.01 dec. of

Government land belonging to the Purta Bibhaga.

(vii) The petitioner denies any knowledge of acquisition and contends that

no such fact was reflected in the ROR or communicated by any authority

at the time of purchase, conversion, or mutation. He maintains that he

has been in lawful possession and that his eviction without due process

would violate his constitutional rights.

(viii) After completion of the acquisition proceedings and subsequent

correction of records, the disputed portion of land came to be recorded

in the name of the Purta Bibhaga as Khata No. 919, Plot No. 1626/3080.

The authorities claim the eviction notice was issued in public interest to

remove unauthorized occupation.

(ix) The petitioner, disputing the legality of the notice and asserting his

lawful ownership and possession, has approached this Hon'ble Court

seeking quashing of the eviction notice and protection from

dispossession, while the Tahasildar defends the action as lawful and

necessary for implementation of the State Highway project.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) The petitioner contends that the eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 issued

by the Tahasildar, Bonth, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction,

having been issued without considering his title, possession, mutation

records, and payment of rent.

(ii) It is urged that the Tahasildar has failed to consider the registered Sale

Deed (Annexure-1), ROR entry, and rent receipts (Annexure-2), all of

which establish lawful ownership and possession of the petitioner over

the land in question.

(iii) The plea of the Opposite Party that a portion of the land had been

acquired under LA Case No. 35/2009 is baseless and unsustainable. The

petitioner argues that if such acquisition existed, the authorities were

bound to reflect it in the ROR and restrict sale or conversion at the

relevant time. Their failure amounts to official negligence.

(iv) The petitioner asserts that the Opposite Parties, being custodians of land

records, cannot now claim that acquisition proceedings were pending or

completed after having allowed the petitioner's mutation and

conversion and accepted rent for over a decade.

(v) The petitioner further contends that the plea of the Opposite Parties

regarding "delay in correction of ROR due to numerous abatement

proceedings" cannot justify depriving a bona fide purchaser of his

property rights. A delay of nearly twelve years in updating land records

cannot override settled possession and ownership.

(vi) The counter affidavit's claim that the land has been recorded in the name

of "Purta Bibhaga" is vague and unsupported by documentary proof.

No date or copy of correction entry or notice of hearing has been

provided, showing mala fide intent and suppression of material facts.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vii) The petitioner submits that the eviction notice, being issued without

notice, inquiry, or consideration of relevant documents, violates the

principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee under

Article 300A read with Article 21.

(viii) The petitioner therefore prays for quashing of the impugned eviction

notice (Annexure-3) and for protection from any coercive action

pending adjudication of the writ petition, as the same is essential to

prevent irreparable injury and uphold the rule of law.

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 Opposite Party No. 3 contends that the petitioner's writ petition is

wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserves dismissal, as the

petitioner has suppressed material facts and approached the Court

without clean hands.

(ii) It is asserted that the land under dispute is part of an acquisition made

long before the petitioner's purchase, and once compensation was

awarded in Land Abatement Case No. 35/2009, the title stood vested

with the Government. Any subsequent sale by Gouranga Sahu in 2011

was void and conferred no right, title, or interest upon the petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner, despite being aware of the acquisition and subsequent

correction of records, unlawfully occupied and constructed over a

Government plot recorded in the name of Purta Bibhaga. Such

encroachment, according to the Tahasildar, constitutes unauthorized

occupation liable to removal under law.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iv) The plea of delay in ROR correction is explained as arising out of

numerous simultaneous abatement proceedings for the S.H. 53 project.

The Opposite Party maintains that this administrative delay does not

alter the legal status of the land, which already vested in the State upon

acquisition.

(v) It is contended that the notice issued on 08.01.2021 was lawful, proper,

and in the interest of the public, as the encroached portion is part of a

public road (Kisam - Rasta). The authorities acted within their

jurisdiction and with due regard to administrative necessity.

(vi) The assertion that the petitioner was unaware of acquisition proceedings

is denied. The Opposite Party states that repeated public

announcements were made and that both the petitioner and his vendor

were fully conscious of the land being acquired yet chose to proceed

with the illegal transaction and construction.

(vii) The Opposite Party finally submits that since the petitioner's possession

is unauthorized and contrary to statutory records, no fundamental or

legal right is infringed. The writ petition is therefore liable to be

dismissed with costs, upholding the impugned notice of eviction issued

in the larger public interest.

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. The crucial question is whether the petitioner's 2011 sale deed conveyed

any title after the land had already been acquired by the State and

compensation paid to the vendors in 2009. Under the Land Acquisition

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Act, once compensation is awarded and paid, the acquired land vests in

the State, and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition.

7. In fact, in this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa

v. Dhobei Sethi1 held that a subsequent purchaser cannot raise this

objection to the acquisition proceedings. The relevant excerpts are

produced below:

"As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC No. 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition."

8. In the present case, the petitioner bought the plot long after acquisition

was completed, so legally he stands in the shoes of a subsequent

purchaser. His remedy, if any, is a claim to a portion of the compensation

(under Section 48 of the Act), not retention of possession or annulment

of the acquisition.

9. Constitutional guarantees under Article 300A only permit deprivation

of property by lawful acquisition with compensation. This principle has

been underscored by a plethora of judicial precedents including the

Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Sh. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar

v. State of Gujarat2 wherein it held as under:

"Generally speaking preservation of public health or prevention of damage to life and property are considered to be public purposes. Yet deprivation of property for any such purpose would not amount to acquisition or possession taken under Article 300A. It would be by exercise of the Police power of the State. In other words, Art. 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no

AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 142

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation. Acquisition of mines, minerals and quarries is deprivation under Art 300A."

10. Here the land in question was acquired for public purpose (State

Highway) through a valid notification, and adequate compensation was

paid in 2009. The constitutional requirements were thus satisfied. The

petitioner's argument that the acquisition was not reflected in the

Record of Rights at the time of his purchase does not negate the legal

effect of the acquisition. Once the land was lawfully acquired and

compensation paid, title passed to the State, irrespective of any delay or

omission in updating the revenue records.

11. Moreover, mutation entries and rent receipts do not create title

independent of the underlying transfer. Mutation proceedings serve

only to fix the person liable to pay land revenue and other dues, not to

adjudicate ownership. A mutation based on a registered sale deed can

only be set aside if the sale deed itself is set aside in a civil proceeding.

In other words, the correctness of the sale (and hence the mutation) must

be tested in a civil court, not in a writ petition. The fact that the petitioner

obtained mutation and paid rent to the revenue authorities is of no avail

to sustain his possession against the State's title. Those entries merely

recognize who was in possession for tax purposes; they do not confer an

indefeasible title when the land itself was already acquired.

12. Finally, the eviction notice in question was issued under statutory

authority to remove unauthorized occupation of State land. In fact, this

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Court in the case of Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha3 had held

that the eviction notices directed at unlawful occupants were held to be

legal, valid and sustainable in the eye of law. The relevant excerpts are

produced below:

"The land in dispute is an Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath, recorded in the name of the deity, and the Petitioners are unauthorised occupants thereon. The eviction notice dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, and the rejection order dated 21.02.2024 issued by the Chief Administrator (Revenue), Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, are legal, valid and sustainable in the eye of law."

13. By parity of reasoning, the Tahasildar's notice cannot be impugned,

since the land is now recorded in the name of the Purta Bibhaga (for

highway use) and the petitioner's occupation is therefore unauthorized.

There is no procedural infirmity that vitiates the notice: it was issued

pursuant to the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and

judicial directions to clear acquired land. The petitioner's contention of

denial of natural justice does not override the rule that, after acquisition,

only compensation remedies remain available.

V. CONCLUSION:

14. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition fails on merits and is

dismissed. No interference can be granted with the eviction notice dated

08.01.2021. The petitioner is at liberty to seek any appropriate remedy