Procedural safeguards in demolitions must be strictly followed; arbitrary executive actions violate constitutional rights and undermine public trust.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since both the cases are interlinked, both the cases are being heard and disposed of together. However, this Court feels it appropriate to treatW.P.(C) No.1373 of 2025 as the leading case for proper adjudication of both the matters.

2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to declare the demolition of the community structure as illegal, order its reconstruction at State expense, award compensation for loss and hardship suffered, and initiate proceedings against officials responsible for violating binding judicial orders and constitutional safeguards.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The dispute pertains to a structure known as ‘Gosthigruha’ or Community Centre, constructed on a portion of land measuring Ac. 0.05 dec out of a total of Ac. 1.87 dec, classified as Gochar (grazing) land under Khata No. 616, Plot No. 1261, located at Mouza: Balipur, Tahasil: Athagarh, District: Cuttack.

(ii) This land is recorded in the name of RakhitaAnabadi and falls under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 ( OPLE ACT ). According to the petitioners, the structure existed in some form since 1985, repaired post-cyclone in 1999, and was reconstructed in 2016-18 using public funds sanctioned under the “Ama Gaon AmaVikasYojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.

(iii) The community centre was used by villagers for public utility purposes, including awareness drives, yoga camps, health check-ups, and government outreach programmes. The land, though classified as Gochar, was neither objected to by authorities at the time of construction nor encroached forcibly. Villagers expressed willingness to exchange homestead land in lieu of the Gochar portion used.

(iv) In July 2024, encroachment proceedings were initiated under the OPLE ACT via Notices dated 26.07.2024 in Encroachment Cases No. 111 and 113 of 2024-25. Petitioners challenged the proceedings by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 19449/2024 and 19450/2024, which were disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 16.08.2024, directing the Petitioners to file an application for settlement under Section 8A of the OPLE ACT .

(v) The said application was filed on 03.09.2024 and was rejected on 30.09.2024 citing lack of documentary proof of continuous possession, inauthenticity of resolutions, non-compoundability of the land category, and absence of registration.

(vi) The rejection was followed by an appeal before the Sub-Collector in Encroachment Appeal Nos. 26 & 27 of 2024, and simultaneously W.P.(C) Nos. 29185 and 29258 of 2024 were filed. On 29.11.2024, the High Court directed that no eviction shall take place during the pendency of the appeal.

(vii) Despite the order, a new eviction notice dated 05.12.2024 was issued, prompting the Petitioners to approach the High Court again in W.P.(C) Nos. 31269 and 31279 of 2024. On 13.12.2024, the High Court reiterated its stance, restraining eviction during the pendency of the appeals.

(viii) On the same day (13.12.2024), the Sub-Collector concluded the hearing and allegedly reserved orders in the appeal around 4 PM. However, at approximately 5.15 PM, a demolition notice was affixed, indicating that the structure would be demolished the next morning (14.12.2024).

(ix) On 14.12.2024 at 10:00 AM, the