Public interest in infrastructure development supersedes individual claims of encroachers, confirming no legal rights exist to continue occupation of government land. Authorities must act lawfully while ensuring humane treatment during evictions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, Charampa Byabasayee Sangha, seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.5—the Tahasildar, Bhadrak—not to demolish the shop rooms of the members of the Petitioner-Sangha situated on both sides of the Charampa Bazar Station Road connecting Bhadrak Railway Station to National Highway No.5 (now NH-16). The Petitioner further prays for a direction restraining the authorities from evicting the shop owners until their rehabilitation at a suitable nearby location is ensured by the Executive Officer, Bhadrak Municipality and the Tahasildar, Bhadrak, in coordination with the Town Planning Authority, Bhadrak, under the direct supervision of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, in terms of the decision of the District Administration in Resumption Case No.01 of 2012 and in compliance with the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14910 of 2025.

3. On 25.08.2012, pursuant to representations received from certain members of the public, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, addressed a communication to the Collector, Bhadrak, directing him to convene a meeting with the R&B authorities and other stakeholders to take immediate and appropriate steps for widening the aforesaid road. The said communication further observed that, “if required, the unauthorized encroachers over Government plots should also be affected to facilitate the road expansion work.

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid observation of the learned R.D.C.(Central Division), Cuttack, regarding eviction of unauthorized encroachers was made without reference to the earlier communication dated 10.07.2012 issued by the Collector, Bhadrak to the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, wherein was clearly indicated that widening the road to 44 feet would adequately serve public requirements, and that any further widening might disrupt public order as it would necessitate demolition of a Mosque and a Durga Mandap. This material fact, it is urged, was not placed before the R.D.C. The Collector, Bhadrak, who was duty-bound to apprise the R.D.C. of the discussions held with stakeholders and the consensus that had already been reached, failed to do so. Instead, the Collector misconstrued the R.D.C.’s observation as a direction to undertake eviction of alleged encroachers and consequential demolition. Acting on such misinterpretation, the Collector initiated steps to evict the present shop owners and demolish their establishments on both sides of the road without issuing prior notice to them. The commencement of such administrative action was also reported in the daily newspaper “Samaj” dated 26.09.2012.

5. Being aggrieved by the precipitative and unilateral action of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner-Sangha was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18588 of 2012. By order dated 20.12.2012, this Court was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo and further enjoined learned State Counsel to obtain instructions with regard to the proposal of the Collector, Bhadrak which embodied in Annexure-1, whereby widening of the existing road to 46 feet was suggested, a proposal to which the Petitioner- Sangha had expressed unequivocal willingness and acquiescence. Yet, in stark departure from his own earlier stand, and in disregard of the judicial d