Unauthorized occupation of government land does not confer entitlement to settlement unless criteria specified by government policies are met.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the impugned eviction orders passed by the Tahasildar, Ghatagaon, Sub-Collector, Keonjhar and ADM, Keonjhar and to direct settlement of the disputed land in his favour on the basis of long, continuous possession since 1966.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The petitioner challenges three orders of eviction: Tahasildar, Ghatagaon (28.03.2007) in Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07, Sub- Collector, Keonjhar (16.06.2008) in Encroachment Appeal No.01/2007, and Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar (06.03.2009) in Encroachment Revision No.04/2008, all confirmed the eviction and penalties.

(ii) The disputed land is Plot No.534 under Khata No.116 (later noted as Khata No.166) of Mouza Dhenkikote, measuring Ac.1.22 dec., recorded in the ROR as “jungle kisam” under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata, previously held by one Karuna Sethi and later occupied by the petitioner’s father, Mohan Ch. Sahoo, since 1966.

(iii) The petitioner’s father constructed a shed for residence, cultivated the land, and his possession was reflected in earlier revenue records; reports of the Tahasildar in 2007 confirmed long possession since 1966.

(iv) Earlier encroachment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner’s father: Case No.179/1992-93 and Case No.255/2001-02, where he admitted possession and sought settlement; Revenue Inspector reports recorded the land as “jungle kisam,” noted income above the prescribed limit, and held him not landless; eviction notices were issued, penalties imposed, and lands recorded as free from encroachment.

(v) In 2006-07, the petitioner himself was proceeded against in Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07 for raising a boundary wall on Plot No.534; notice under Section 7 OPLE Act was issued on 24.02.2007 and show cause reply was filed on 09.03.2007 pleading landless status and long possession.

(vi) The Tahasildar ordered eviction on 28.03.2007, holding that the petitioner remained absent and villagers protested the encroachment.

(vii) The Sub-Collector, in Appeal No.01/2007, dismissed the plea on 16.06.2008, finding that the land was “jungle kisam” under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata and not leasable in nature.

(viii) The Additional District Magistrate, in Revision No.04/2008, dismissed the case on 06.03.2009, holding that possession was not continuous, earlier encroachment cases existed, the petitioner was not landless, income exceeded the prescribed limit, and jungle kisam land was not fit for settlement.

(ix) The opposite parties relied upon Revenue Inspector reports, RoR extracts showing no possession recorded in the petitioner’s father’s name, and documents reflecting income levels and property holdings including an aluminium shop at Anandapur and agricultural land at Mugupur.

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 orders are contrary to law as the authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioner and his family have been in continuous possession since 1966, which creates entitlement for settlement.

(ii) The finding that the petitioner is not a landless person and has income of Rs.30,000 per annum is based on no material; no particulars of land ownership or income sources were produced, rendering the conclusion arbitrary.

(iii) The Sub-Collector’s observation that the land is Abad Jogya Anabadi should have prevailed; the ADM’s reliance on the “jungle kisam” entry in ROR reflects non-applicatio