A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge a valid land acquisition post-compensation; title vests in the State regardless of delays in updating records.

Judgment :

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., 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.

(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. Lear