Legal occupancy rights cannot be established through mere prolonged illegal possession; public land encroachment necessitates strict enforcement of eviction procedures under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this Intra-Court Appeal, the Appellants lay challenge to the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13132 of 2022. By the said order dated 31.10.2025, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the prayer of the Appellants, passed the following order:

“In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court directs the Petitioners to vacate the encroached land in question within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the Petitioners do not vacate the land in question within the time stipulated herein, the Authority is free to take action against the Petitioners in accordance with law. However, the Petitioners shall move for space in the new bus stand and the Collector, Koraput shall explore the possibility of a small space required for the Bus Owner Association in and around the vicinity of the new bus stand for smooth functioning of their Office”

2. Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge failed to consider the object and scope of the provisions under the OPLE Act and their proper application. It was contended that the Appellants have been in continuous possession of the land in question, notwithstanding which Respondent No.2, i.e., the Tahasildar, Jeypore, issued notice directing eviction of the Appellants from the case land, although the very Act empowers the authority to settle the land in favour of eligible persons such as the Appellants. Learned counsel further assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Appellants by the statutory authority prior to issuing the eviction notice and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, vehemently contended that the Appellants are encroachers and unauthorised occupants of public land. It was submitted that under the guise of carrying on the activities of a registered trade union, the Appellants have no right to encroach upon public land. The notice issued by Respondent No.2 directing eviction of the Appellants from the case land, being in accordance with law, deserves no interference. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with the matter and rightly declined the relief sought by the Appellants and, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it would be apposite to notice the broader context in which disputes of the present nature arise. Needless to say, encroachment on public land has indeed become a significant and growing menace in the State, which directly undermines administrative control and hampers planned urban development. It poses a serious threat to public health, safety, and the environment and also reduces the space available for public roads and other essential public amenities.

5. Despite consistent directions issued by the Courts to the State authorities, such directions are often not followed in their letter and spirit. This is largely attributable to lapses on the part of Government functionaries, particularly in the revenue administration, who, despite playing a crucial role in preventing encroachments, have often contributed to the rise of land encroachment. While such functionaries are legally obligated to protect State-owned land, judicial notice can be taken of instances where corruption, collusion, or negligence of officials has facilitated illegal occupation. Encroachers oft