IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15942 of 2024 Kamala Singh …. Petitioner Mr. Pravas Chandra Jena, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Dash, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate along with Mr.Jagajiban Pradhan, Advocate for O.P. Nos.8 & 9 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 12.05.2025

05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. It is really unprecedented that a writ proceeding is disposed of without deciding the rights of the parties, yet the interim protection is given till the next steps are taken. The party aggrieved by the action of the authority if approached the Writ Court, it is an ardent duty of the Court to decide whether any constitutional or the statutory rights have been violated by the authority coming within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not a safest course to extent protection to the parties and dispose of the writ petition without deciding such rights. The instant Public Interest Litigation is filed alleging that the Government land is encroached upon by the encroachers and the Government is showing apathetic attitude in not taking any steps for their removal.

3. The issue appears to be a larger in the perspective of the State as the Government land, without any authority of law or a grant issued by appropriate competent authority, cannot be permitted to be utilized and, therefore, it is the duty of the Government to see that the land belonging to the Government, which are to be used and utilized for a larger public interest or for public good remain unencumbered and the encroachers or the illegal occupants should not be permitted to remain thereupon. We do not see any fetter on the part of the Government in the event the Government take a policy decision to settle the land but till such time, if the policy decision is not taken, the encumbrances cannot be allowed to remain and the Government must resume the land. The opposite party nos.8 and 9 have approached and the counsel appearing for them is very much vocal in his submission that when disposing of the writ petition filed by his clients, the protection in their eviction was given till date as the public interest litigation is pending. The citizen of the country is bound by the Constitution as well as the Statute promulgated and/or enacted by the Parliament or the Assembly. He cannot take the law in his own hand nor can segregate himself from the clutches of the law applicable to all the persons uniformly. If there is any infringement or the violation of the constitutional or statutory right, the constitutional Courts protects such interest but not when a person, who has violated the mandate of the law and then seeking of protection from the Courts. We thus do not find any justification in the stand of the opposite party nos.8 and 9.

4. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the State as well as the petitioner that the proceeding in accordance with law has been initiated upon identifying the encroachers and the competent authority has found such encroachments without any authority or law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the noticees and passed an order of removal/eviction as permissible in law. Learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party nos.8 and 9 submits that the order of eviction passed by the authority is challenged before the appellate authority and such appeal is yet to be decided finally. The law will take its own course as the Court should not shut the doors of the statutory remedies available to a person. We, therefore, observe that it is open for the opposite parties 8 and 9 to approach the appellate forum and seek any protection, as available in law.

5. The public interest litigation is disposed of with the following directions:-

A. The State shall make an extensive enquiry and/or investigation in relation to an encroachment over the Gover