The right to shelter does not confer perpetual occupation rights on public land, and legal acquisition processes must be respected; rehabilitation benefits depend on eligibility under applicable policies.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since these Writ Petitions involve a common question of law, those are being heard and disposed of together. The facts are being delineated with reference to W.P.(C) No.3550 of 2025, which is treated as the leading case.

2. In W.P.(C) No.3550 of 2025, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the eviction notices issued in respect of the disputed land and to restrain the authorities from dispossessing him without first extending rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, asserting violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The petitioner, an elderly person claiming to be landless and economically weak, has approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging notices of eviction issued in respect of land situated at Gopalprasad village, Khata No. 313, Plot No. 1963, Kisama Taila, near Maa Hingula Temple, Talcher area.

(ii) The land in question forms part of the Hingula Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and was acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act through notifications issued between 1994 and 1997, with possession stated to have been taken over by MCL in 1999.

(iii) The petitioner asserts continuous residence in the area for nearly three generations and claims to have been traditionally engaged in seva karya at Maa Hingula Temple, including cleaning the premises and beating drums, allegedly for about fifty years.

(iv) In October and December 2024, the petitioner received multiple notices from the authorities requiring him to vacate the land on the ground that it is government land already acquired by MCL and required urgently for peripheral development works of Maa Hingula Temple, for which substantial State funds have been sanctioned.

(v) The petitioner submitted representations in response to the notices, asserting that he had neither received compensation nor rehabilitation benefits under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement policies and seeking protection from eviction without rehabilitation.

(vi) Counter affidavits have been filed by the State authorities and MCL disputing the petitioner’s claims, asserting that the land is government land, that acquisition proceedings were completed decades earlier, and that the petitioner is an unauthorized encroacher with no legal entitlement to compensation or rehabilitation.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner contends that he and his forefathers have been residing near Maa Hingula Temple for about three generations and have been rendering continuous traditional services to the temple, thereby establishing long-standing residence and livelihood dependence on the area.

(ii) It is asserted that although the surrounding village area was acquired for the Hingula OCP project, the petitioner was neither p