Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
Smt. Arnapurna Sahoo & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) Nos.23059 of 2023 along with W.P.(C) Nos.7860 of 2021, 7862 of 2021, CONTC No.1165 of 2022, W.P.(C) Nos.20526 of 2023, CONTC Nos.2473 and 3111 of 2023
Decided On : 22-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda

Adverse possession claims over government land require substantial evidence; mere long-standing possession does not confer title, particularly where public interest is involved.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 - Sections 4(1) and 5(1) - Adverse possession - Petitioners contest eviction order, asserting long-standing possession and right by adverse possession over Government land - Lower authorities failed to adequately adjudicate claims of title and possession. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Nature of review - Court's supervisory role not to act as an appellate authority for disputed questions of fact - Reference to public purpose and acquired rights to maintain public land. (Paras 6-10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners assert legacy of possession of Government land, subject to eviction proceedings initiated against predecessors leading to multiple court interventions and remands over decades. Petitioners argue for title based on adverse possession, having occupied the land since 1926, and contest eviction on procedural grounds. (Paras 3-19)

Findings of Court:
No merit in the petition; prior orders required only consideration of adverse possession, not an endorsation of it. The court ultimately deferred eviction based on public necessity and precedence of governmental authority. (Paras 18-20)

Issues: Whether procedural impropriety or patent illegality necessitates court intervention. Efficacy of adverse possession claims against Government land. (Paras 8-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the position that possession claims under adverse possession over Government land, especially for public use, lack substantial backing without documentary evidence; reiterated principles from precedent against encroachment over public lands. (Paras 12-15)

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case background and factual matrix. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' arguments regarding adverse possession. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis on the legal standing and authority decisions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. conclusion on dismissal without adjudication on title. (Para 18 , 19)
5. final orders of dismissal and vacation of interim orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-mentioned Writ Petitions and the CONTCs, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No.23059 of 2023 is treated as the leading case.

2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 206 of 2021, contending that the same has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions arising out of the same subject matter.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner and his forefathers have been in occupation of a piece of Government land measuring 95 ft. × 80 ft., appertaining to Plot No. 790 and Plot No. 705 of Mouza Baramunda, over which an asbestos house has been constructed and the remaining portion has been enclosed by fencing.

(ii) Opposite Party No. 3 initiated O.P.P. Case No. 78 of 1986 against the predecessors of the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised occupation of Government land.

(iii) In response to the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, the predecessor of the petitioner submitted a detailed show-cause reply, inter alia contending that he was not an unauthorised occupant and that he had been in possession of the case land since the time of his ancestors, thereby claiming to have perfected title by way of adverse possession.

(iv) It is further the case of the petitioner that during the year 1957–1958, a Waste Land Case being W.L. Case No. 21 of 1957–58 was initiated for settlement of Government land measuring Ac. 8.90 decimals out of Plot No. 899 under Khata No. 3 of Mouza Baramunda in the name of the petitioner’s uncle, namely Alekha Sahoo, and others, wherein an Istahar was issued inviting public objections for settlement of the land.

(v) Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was called upon to file an application for settlement of the land in his favour, as the predecessor of the petitioner had lost his properties due to acquisition of land for establishment of the Odisha Agriculture University. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has no other dwelling house except the house standing over the case land.

(vi) During the settlement operation, the name of the petitioner was recorded as an encroacher in the remarks column of the record-of-rights. It is further stated that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has been assessing holding tax in respect of the case land in the name of the petitioner since 1977–1978.

(vii) Opposite Party No. 2, in the said proceeding, instead of dropping the case, recorded a finding that the petitioner had not taken steps to get his right, title and interest declared by a competent civil court and, ultimately, passed an order of eviction vide order dated 07.04.1988 in O.P.P. Case No. 79/86 (L).

(viii) Challenging the said order dated 07.04.1988, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 157 of 1988 before Opposite Party No. 3. However, Opposite Party No. 3, without adjudicating upon the plea of adverse possession, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of thirteen days and declined to condone the said delay.

(ix) Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 209 of 1988 before the court of the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar, seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land a