[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Manoj Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGRAM DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 18:08:59


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                       W.P.(C) No. 3157 of 2026

                            (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

                            Manoj Kumar Dash                                    .......        Petitioner

                                                                       -Versus-

                            State of Odisha & Ors.                              .......     Opposite Parties


                            Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
                             For Petitioner           :      Mr. K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra

                             For Opposite Parties          :      Mr. G.Tripathy, AGA


                                          CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                                                               JUDGMENT

6th April 2026

B.P. Routray,J.

1. Heard Mr. K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra, learned counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. G.Tripathy, learned AGA for State-Opposite

Parties.

2. Present writ petition is directed against order dated 19th

December 2025 of the Revisional Authority under the Odisha

Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, i.e. by the Collector,

Khordha. The Petitioner also challenges the order of the Appellate

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Authority. Both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority

have confirmed the order of eviction against the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner is admittedly an encroacher in respect of

Ac.0.05 decimals of land in Plot No.152 under Khata No.460 of

Mouza-Koduabereni. The said land has been recorded in the Kisam of

'Bastijogya'. But the Tahasildar while issuing notice have mentioned

the Kisam of the land as 'Gochhara' and taking advantage of the same

it is contended by the Petitioner that his case was not considered

properly for settlement of the land in his favour. It is submitted on

behalf of the Petitioner that both the Appellate as well as Revisional

Authority have committed the error treating the land as 'Gochhara'

and stating the same as objectionable for recording it in favour of

private person.

But upon thorough perusal of the Appellate order dated 18th July

2025 and the Revisional order dated 19th December 2025, it is seen

that nothing has been stated to mention the encroached land as Kisam

'Gochhara'. The Sub-Collector has stated in his order that, it is the

submission of the counsel of the Appellant that the land is of the

Kisam 'Gochhara'. Similarly, the Collector in the revisional order has

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

stated that the Sub-Collector hold the land as 'Gochhara' which is not

at all correct.

4. The crux of the issue lies in the fact that the Petitioner is a

sheer encroacher of the property measuring Ac.0.05 decimals. He is

not a landless person and as per the opinion of Appellate Authority as

well as Revisional Authority, he does not fall in the homesteadless

category as mentioned in the O.P.L.E. Act. The report of the

Tahasildar reveals that the Petitioner is not coming under the

homesteadless category and in this regard looking to the appeal memo

as well as the revision petition filed by the Petitioner, it is seen that

the Petitioner has specifically stated that he has no sufficient land to

accommodate his growing family and therefore he occupied the land

by constructing an asbestos house over the same. It is never pleaded

by the Petitioner either before the Appellate Authority or Revisional

Authority that he is a homesteadless person and required to be

considered for settlement of the land in his favour.

5. On the other hand, it is seen from the order of the Appellate

Authority that the Petitioner has ample landed properties as detailed

in the Appellate order. Therefore, it is satisfactorily seen from record

that the Petitioner is not a landless person also who has several

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

patches of land recorded in his name inherited from his forefathers.

This is a case where both the Appellate Authority as well as the

Revisional Authority have considered the case of the Petitioner and

rejected his prayer. When the Petitioner is a sheer encroacher of the

government land, no infirmity could be seen in the order of eviction

of the authority confirmed by the Appellate Court as well as by the

Revisional Court. In Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.,

AIR 1964 SC 477, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while explaining the

limits of jurisdiction of the High Court issuing writ of certiorari while

dealing with the orders passed by the different authorities have stated

as follows:-

7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.

8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.

What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-inter- pretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of a the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.

6. Having gone through the order of the Appellate Court as

well as the Revisional Court, when it is established that the Petitioner

is having such extent of landed properties in his favour inherited from

ancestors, and he does not come in the category of homesteadless

person or landless person, no justification can remain on his part to

occupy the government land by encroachment. Further, without

finding any procedural infirmity in the orders of the Appellate as well

as Revisional Authorities and finding no merit in the contention of the

Petitioner to interfere with the same, I am not inclined to entertain the

challenge of the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

7. Accordingly, The writ petition is dismissed.

8. The additional affidavit as filed by the Petitioner in Court today is kept on record.