Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Kedar Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request to quash eviction notices (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions of the petitioners regarding eviction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of validity of eviction based on land ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. locating responsibility for rehabilitation among authorities (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of petitions; legality of eviction affirmed (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
1. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the eviction/show-cause notices dated 13.01.2025, restrain coercive dispossession and protect their possession and livelihood, contending that the impugned action violates statutory safeguards under the 2017 Act and the PPE Act, and offends principles of natural justice and Article 21.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioners are as follows:
(i) The dispute arises from eviction/show-cause notices dated 13.01.2025 issued by Senior Section Engineer (Works), East Coast Railways, Srikakulam Division (O.P. No.4) calling upon occupants to vacate alleged encroached railway/public land within 15 days.
(ii) The petitioners claim to
Unauthorized occupation of public property cannot be justified by claims of fundamental rights; eviction notices against illegal occupants are lawful and valid.
The PPE Act allows for eviction of unauthorized occupants, but due process and natural justice must be observed in such proceedings.
Point of Law- Substantial contention is that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice, in view of the fact that no individual notices have been given but in the considered opinion....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even unauthorized occupants of premises should be evicted through legal means, and the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or termin....
Petitioners cannot claim permanent possession or rehabilitation as their occupation was based on temporary licenses, subject to termination as per the agreement for public use.
Occupation of premises for educational purposes deemed unauthorized without authority according to Public Premises Act, justifying eviction despite claims of longstanding occupancy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
Section 4 of Public Premises Act has provided for issue of show cause notice against order of eviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
