The court ruled that eviction proceedings for unauthorized occupation in municipal areas must adhere to the Odisha Public Premises Act, not the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, reaffirming the jurisdictional limitations of the Tahasildar.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Panda, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-Opposite Party.

2. The Petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 03.01.2026 issued by the Tahasildar, Rairangpur under Annexure-6 directing for eviction of unauthorized encroachment of the Petitioner while rejecting his contention questioning the authority of the Tahasildar to proceed under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “OPLE Act”).

3. The entire contention of the Petitioner is that that Tahasildar, Rairangpur (Opposite Party No.2) has no jurisdiction to proceed under the OPLE Act within Rairangpur Municipality area as the provisions of the OPLE Act is not applicable to such lands.

4. A Division Bench of our Court in Jasobant Parida vs. State of Odisha and others , 2024 (I) OLR—278, while dealing with an order of eviction issued under the provisions of OPLE Act has answered a similar issue that, any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be an industrial estate, it can be construed to be a public premises and therefore the action need to be taken against the unauthorized encroachers is in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, “OPP (EUO) Act”). The relevant observations read as follows:-

“9. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is, “Whether the provisions of OPLE Act, 1972 are applicable to the cases of unauthorised eviction and whether the statutory authorities under the said Act have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of eviction involved in respect of the land covered under Municipalities or NACs coming under urban area in view of the fact that the legislature have subsequently legislated the provisions of OPP Act, 1972 to deal with such cases in respect of the land under Municipality or NAC area?”

xxx xxx xxx

13. The above mentioned provisions, under Subsections(a) to (e) of Section 2 of the Act, prescribe which can be termed as the property of the Government. The vires of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1954, as amended by the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (Amendment) Act, 1970, was challenged in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 1584 of 1968. This Court held that Sec. 3 of the Act is void as it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. In a series of cases, this Court has also earlier observed that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were void. As Sections 3 , 5 and 6 forming the very core were void, the Court held the entire Act including the amending Act of 1970 to be void. Thereby, it was necessary to effect the reenactment of the law permanently to replace the Ordinance. Under the Scheme of the Act it is only encroachment of Government land either by construction of house or otherwise, which can form the subject-matter of a proceeding under the Act. Since OPLE Act, 1972 is enacted to provide for prevention of unauthorized occupation of lands, which are the Government property as mentioned in Section 2 of the Act, the action should be taken in conformity with the said provisions of the Act.

14. The Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, i.e., Odisha Act 7 of 1972 was assented to by the President on 9th February, 1972 to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. “Public Premises” has been defined under Section 2 (f) to the following effect:-

“(f) “Public Premises” means any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or with