The petitioner failed to demonstrate a legal right to remain on government land, with unauthorized possession lacking sufficient evidence for entitlement under the OPLE Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner alleged to be an encroacher has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties for not evicting him from the disputed property in question without following due process of law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner claiming himself to be a farmer, has been in possession of a piece of land measuring Ac.0.55 decimals. Kissam of the said land is Sarada-III which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Mouza:- Jaringi, Tahasil:-Nayagarh. Though the Petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the said land, the said land stands recorded in the name of his grandfather named Dinabandhu Jena. Record-of-Rights published on 13.06.1983 also shows the said fact and in the said Record-of-Rights status of the land is recorded as Rayati.

(ii) As per the Record-of-Rights published on 13.06.1983, the case land which appertains to Plot No.582 measuring an area Ac.0.160 decimals, Kissam-Gochar, Hal-Kisam-Sarada-III, Mouza-Jaringi, Tahasil-Odagaon stands recorded in the name of the State Government under the status- Rakhita. It is pertinent to mention here that the case land is adjacent to the Petitioner’s above noted recorded land. Since the case land was vacant for a long time, the grandfather of the Petitioner had amalgamated the said land into his above noted own land for doing cultivation.

(iii) The Petitioner has been doing cultivation over the said land since his grandfather. In recent past, in order to construct a dumping yard in the said area the Executive Officer, NAC, Odagaon/Opposite Party No.3 attempted to construct a boundary wall over the encroached land/case land which is recorded in the name of the State Government as per the above noted Record-of-Rights published in the year 1983. Since the Opposite Party No.3 attempted to construct a boundary wall over the case land in question which is encroached by the Petitioner unauthorizedly, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

(iv) Being aggrieved by the above action of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been in possession of the case land in question since his forefather without any disturbance by any authority. He further contends that the Petitioner has been doing cultivation over the said land without any disturbance.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Opposite Party No.3 is attempting to evict the Petitioner from the case land in question without following due process of law. He further submits that since the Petitioner has been in possession over the disputed property in question since more than fifteen years, the said land may be recorded in his name as per the provision under Section 8 -A of the OPLE Act.

6. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this Writ Petition.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

7. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

8. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of Government land recorded as Rakhita in the name of the State, and hence has no lawful right, title, or interest over