Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI, J.
Abasika Sangha, Sector-13, CDA, Cuttack - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 11164 of 2023
Decided On :31-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nirod Kumar Sahu, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates
The court emphasized that even unauthorized occupants must be afforded due process with notice and hearing before eviction, despite lacking legal rights over the land.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 - Sections 15 and 16 - Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 21 - Writ Petition challenging demolition notice of an unauthorized community hall - Action of Cuttack Development Authority deemed arbitrary and violative of natural justice for not providing notice or hearing prior to demolition, although petitioners lack legal right to occupy Government land. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Natural justice - Requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard before eviction is a constitutional requirement, even for unauthorized occupants. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered residents' society, challenged the Cuttack Development Authority's demolition notice of a community hall built on government land without permission. The hall was used for social functions, but the CDA claimed the land was designated for public amenities. The petitioner’s application for development permission was not addressed in time.
Findings of Court:
The CDA's actions were premature and lacking due process, and while the structure was unauthorized, the demolition could only proceed after following legal protocols.
Issues: The main issues included whether the CDA acted arbitrarily and whether the petitioner had any legal rights concerning the occupancy of government land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that while the petitioner had no legal right to the land, due process must be observed when demolishing structures for public use.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed on merits, but demolition must follow legal procedures including notices and hearings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks protection against demolition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's actions are lawful and uphold natural justice. (Para 3) |
| 3. cda cites lack of legal right in eviction. (Para 4) |
| 4. demolition devoid of due process is arbitrary. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; cda must follow law for demolition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
Judgment :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to restrain the Cuttack Development Authority from demolishing the community hall in Sector-13, Cuttack, to regularize its construction, and to ensure that no coercive action is taken without due notice and hearing.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(x) The opposite parties characterize the petitioner’s occupation as unauthorized and contrary to developmental objectives, maintaining that protecting or regularizing such occupation would impede CDA’s planned public works and contravene the law.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The impugned action of CDA is arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, and violative of principles of natural justice, since no notice or hearing preceded the demolition announcement. Even a trespasser cannot be evicted without following due process of law; hence a registered community society in settled possession cannot be dispossessed summarily.
(ii) The community house was built
