Only the designated authority under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act can initiate eviction proceedings, and unauthorized occupants cannot claim legal rights to public land.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice issued by the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad under Section 6 (1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972 in Encroachment Case No. 156/2014. The notice directed removal of construction over land in Mouza–Chikili, Khata No. 625, Plot No. 1326, part of a total area of Ac. 0.228 dec.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The land in question (Plot No. 1326, Khata No. 625) is recorded in the name of the Government in the Record of Rights.

(ii) Petitioners state that they have been in possession of about Ac. 0.070 dec. of the land for over two decades, during which a pucca house was constructed and is being used for residence. Earlier encroachment proceedings were initiated against them in Encroachment Case No. 256/2009 and Encroachment Case No. 156/2014.

(iii) In 2014, villagers of Chikili filed W.P.(C) No. 19745/2014 in the nature of a PIL, seeking eviction of the petitioners. They also submitted a representation to the Collector, Ganjam. By order dated 22.10.2014, the High Court requested the Collector to consider and dispose of the representation on its own merits, after hearing both sides.

(iv) Pursuant to the High Court’s order, the Collector, Ganjam issued notices to both the petitioners and villagers (O.P. Nos. 4–12), fixing the hearing on 29.11.2014.

(v) The petitioners filed a counter affidavit before the Collector, asserting possession over portions of the land for decades. They also placed reliance on Green Card status of petitioner no.1 and submitted related documents.

(vi) The Collector disposed of the villagers’ representation. The petitioners later obtained a copy of the Collector’s order dated 08.01.2015 through RTI, which recorded directions to the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad to take steps for eviction of encroachment over the land.

(vii) Following this, the Tahasildar issued notice dated 12.02.2015 under Section 6 (1) OPLE Act to the petitioners, directing them to remove the alleged encroachment within 10 days, failing which the action of dispossession would follow.

(viii) The counter affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 was sworn by the Tahasildar, Jagannath Prasad, Kailash Chandra Murmu, who is Opposite Party No. 3, duly authorized to depose on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2.

(ix) In the said counter affidavit, the deponent affirmed that he had examined the writ petition and annexures, was acquainted with the facts of the case, and competent to swear the affidavit.

(x) The counter affidavit records the stand of the authorities that the petitioners’ writ petition is directed against the Section 6 (1) notice in Encroachment Case No.156/2014 in relation to land which is part of Government khata.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

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

(i) The Collector’s order dated 08.01.2015 is without jurisdiction because under the OPLE Act, the Collector has no power to direct eviction; only the Tahasildar can decide encroachment cases, with statutory appeals and revisions provided.

(ii) Sect