Unauthorized occupation of government land cannot create rights, and mere communal use does not justify settlement under the OPLE Act, especially when the land is earmarked for public developmental purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioners, functioning as President and Secretary of the Baghamara Gramya Unnayana Samiti (a registered body under MBJ 2631-37 of 1990–91), have challenged three orders: the Tahasildar, Kaptipada’s eviction order dated 30.09.2015 in Encroachment Case No.91/2015, the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada’s appellate order dated 26.04.2016 in Encroachment Appeal No.18/2015, and the Collector, Mayurbhanj’s revisional order dated 24.11.2016 in Encroachment Revision No.04/2016.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The land in dispute is Plot No. 1565 under Khata No. 546, recorded as “Unnata Jojana Jogya” under Rakhit Khata, situated in Mouza Jadida, and described by authorities as Government land reserved for development purpose. Petitioners state it has been used for decades by villagers for communal activities such as a Bhagabata Gadi/Gosti, temple, and ashram, supported by government aid and local contributions.

(ii) On 09.09.2015, the Tahasildar issued a Form-‘A’ notice under Section 9 of the OPLE Act, calling on the petitioners to show cause by 22.09.2015, and on the same day issued a Form-‘B’ notice directing them to vacate within three days. The High Court in W.P.(C) No. 17083/2015 quashed the Form-‘B’ notice on 21.09.2015, holding it premature.

(iii) Petitioners filed their reply to the show cause on 30.09.2015, supported by representations from villagers and the local Sarpanch. The same day, the Tahasildar found the explanation unsatisfactory, assessed encroachment dues of Rs.38 and penalty of Rs.40,000 (total Rs.40,038), and directed vacation of the land within 30 days.

(iv) Petitioners sought settlement of the land under Section 7 (1)(a)/(b) and Section 8 (A) of the OPLE Act, offering exchange of equal land from Petitioner No. 1. The High Court in W.P.(C) No. 18674/2015 on 28.10.2015 directed consideration of their (A) application within three months.

(v) The Sub-Collector dismissed their appeal on 26.04.2016, holding that Section 8 (A) requirements were not met due to lack of valid evidence, and the Collector dismissed their revision on 24.11.2016 for the same reason. Authorities relied on a Revenue Inspector’s report (Form “G”), which recorded petitioners’ unauthorized possession for the past 15 years.

(vi) Petitioners claim of uninterrupted community possession for more than 30–40 years, citing government electrification in 1989–90, construction in 1986 with government aid, and presence of a resident saint since 1976. Authorities counter that no conclusive documentary proof of continuous possession exceeding 30 years was produced, and documents submitted (village petitions, letters, and registration certificates) were photo copies which were not exhibited.

(vii) The official respondents, through affidavit, assert that “Unnat Jojana Jogya” land is not settleable under the OPLE Act, that settlement by way of exchange is not contemplated under law, and that the Writ Petition lacks merit, warranting dismissal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

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

(i) Issuance of Form-‘B’ on 09.09.2015 before expiry of the 22.09.2015 show-cause date violated the OPLE scheme (as already recogniz