Koraput District Private Bus vs Sub-Collector-Cum-Sdm on 17 February, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.A. No.1787 of 2025

  Koraput District Private Bus                ....                         Appellants
  Employees Union, Koraput
  and another
                                       -versus-

  Sub-Collector-cum-SDM,                      ....                       Respondents
  Jeypore, Koraput and another


                        Advocates Appeared in this case

         For Appellant                - Mr. Asit Kumar Jena, Advocate

            For Respondents           - Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA

                                               ---

      CORAM :
      MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
      MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date of Hearing & Judgment: 17.02.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this Intra-Court Appeal, the Appellants lay challenge to the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13132 of 2022. By the said order dated 31.10.2025, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the prayer of the Appellants, passed the following order:

"In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court directs the Petitioners to vacate the encroached land in question within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the Petitioners do not vacate the land in question within the time stipulated herein, the Authority is free to take action against the Petitioners in accordance with law. However, the Petitioners shall move for space in the new bus stand and the Collector, Koraput shall explore the possibility of a small space required for the Bus Owner Association in and around the vicinity of the new bus stand for smooth functioning of their Office"

2. Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge failed to consider the object and scope of the provisions under the OPLE Act and their proper application. It was contended that the Appellants have been in continuous possession of the land in question, notwithstanding which Respondent No.2, i.e., the Tahasildar, Jeypore, issued notice directing eviction of the Appellants from the case land, although the very Act empowers the authority to settle the land in favour of eligible persons such as the Appellants. Learned counsel further assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Appellants by the statutory authority prior to issuing the eviction notice and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, vehemently contended that the Appellants are encroachers and unauthorised occupants of public land. It was submitted that under the guise of carrying on the activities of a registered trade union, the Appellants have no right to encroach upon public land. The notice issued by

Respondent No.2 directing eviction of the Appellants from the case land, being in accordance with law, deserves no interference. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with the matter and rightly declined the relief sought by the Appellants and, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it would be apposite to notice the broader context in which disputes of the present nature arise. Needless to say, encroachment on public land has indeed become a significant and growing menace in the State, which directly undermines administrative control and hampers planned urban development. It poses a serious threat to public health, safety, and the environment and also reduces the space available for public roads and other essential public amenities.

5. Despite consistent directions issued by the Courts to the State authorities, such directions are often not followed in their letter and spirit. This is largely attributable to lapses on the part of Government functionaries, particularly in the revenue administration, who, despite playing a crucial role in preventing encroachments, have often contributed to the rise of land encroachment. While such functionaries are legally obligated to protect State-owned land, judicial notice can be taken of instances where corruption, collusion, or negligence of officials has facilitated illegal occupation. Encroachers often secure illegal occupation of public land through the complicity of public officials. Revenue Inspectors and other field-level functionaries have frequently failed in their sovereign

duty to take proactive measures to prevent encroachments at the initial stage, acting only after the situation becomes difficult to reverse.

6. The judiciary has, on more than one occasion, unequivocally condemned such practices and emphasised the obligation of the State to safeguard public land from illegal occupation. In Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 1123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that encroachments on public land must be removed and that officials who either facilitate or shield such illegal occupation are liable to face appropriate departmental proceedings and, where circumstances so warrant, criminal action. The Court further underscored that senior officers entrusted with supervisory control over the revenue administration cannot evade responsibility on the plea of ignorance or administrative constraints. Instances of encroachment, particularly those which have been allowed to subsist for long periods, warrant proper inquiry to fix accountability, even in respect of past lapse.

7. The provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act clearly reflect the object of preventing encroachment and prescribes the procedure for its implementation by the revenue authorities. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellants that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them cannot be accepted in view of the procedure prescribed under the said Act, which contemplates summary eviction. The Appellants have themselves admitted that they are unauthorised occupants of the case land, having no semblance of right, and claim possession merely on

the basis that they have put up temporary structures in furtherance of their trade union activities. Such occupation, even if undertaken in the name of union activity, does not confer any legal sanctity upon an otherwise unlawful possession. An encroachment of this nature cannot claim constitutional protection, nor does it fall within the ambit of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. The Appellants herein have failed to establish any lawful right, title, or legally recognisable interest in respect of the land in question. Mere long-standing occupation, howsoever extended in duration, does not ripen into a legal right when the initial entry itself is unauthorised. An encroacher cannot claim a vested right to continue in possession solely on the ground that such illegal occupation has subsisted for several years.

9. Admittedly, the Appellants were issued notice and afforded opportunity to submit their representation. However, in order to thwart the statutory action of the authorities, the Appellants earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27816 of 2019 and thereafter again in W.P.(C) No.13132 of 2022, and have remained intent upon stalling lawful action by the statutory authorities.

10. Broadly agreeing with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, we find no material to differ from the impugned judgment. The Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

The Respondents are directed to proceed forthwith against the Appellants in accordance with law. The Appellants are directed to hand over vacant possession of the land in question within a period of ten (10) days from the date of this order, failing which the Superintendent of Police, Jeypore, Koraput shall render necessary assistance to the revenue authorities to ensure eviction without further delay.

Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge

AKPradhan

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 25-Feb-2026 13:23:15