The Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act allows lawful eviction of unauthorized occupants, without conferring title, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness and the validity of eviction orders.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Hon’ble Court to quash the impugned orders dated 25.04.2025 and allied eviction notices, and to restrain the authorities from dispossessing or demolishing her dwelling, except in accordance with law, after due adjudication and rehabilitation.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The petitioner is residing with her three minor children on a portion of land measuring Ac.0.02 decimals out of Ac.0.13 decimals in Mouza Palasahi, Khata No.509, Plot No.871, District Khurda, and claims to have been in possession of the said portion for several years.

(ii) Proceedings under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 were initiated in respect of the said land by the Tahasildar, Balipatna, and an encroachment case bearing No.23/2021–22 was registered.

(iii) An eviction notice was issued to the petitioner directing her to vacate the land within a stipulated time, failing which eviction and demolition were proposed.

(iv) The petitioner challenged the eviction proceedings before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.28670/2024, which was disposed of on 21.11.2024 with liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 12 of the OPLE Act.

(v) Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, which was heard and disposed of on the same day with a direction relating to eviction of the petitioner’s structure.

(vi) The petitioner thereafter approached this Hon’ble Court in subsequent writ petitions, where directions were issued to avail the statutory remedy of revision before the competent authority.

(vii) The petitioner filed OPLE Revision Case No.02/2025 before the Collector, Khurda, which was dismissed on 25.04.2025 at the stage of admission.

(viii) According to the petitioner, the land in question corresponds to Sabik Khata No.456, Sabik Plot No.589, earlier recorded in the name of Late Madhabananda Nayak, and was subsequently recorded in Government Khata during settlement due to non-appearance.

(ix) According to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.4, the land in question is recorded as Government land under Hal Khata No.509 and Hal Plot No.871, and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation thereof.

(x) Opposite Party No.4 states that the encroachment proceedings were initiated on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and statutory notices under the OPLE Act were issued to the petitioner.

(xi) It is stated by Opposite Party No.4 that the Collector, Khurda, while disposing of Revision Case No.02/2025 on 25.04.2025, directed the Tahasildar to evict the encroacher in accordance with law and protect the Government land from further encroachment.

(xii) As per the counter affidavit, certain homestead lands are recorded in the name of the petitioner’s father and grandfather at village Palasahi, and it is further stated that land is recorded in the name of the petitioner’s husband’s family at village Patapara under Balanta Tahasil.

(xiii) Opposite Party No.4 has also relied upon reports of the Revenue Inspector regarding the petitioner’s family income and landholdings from the paternal and marital sides.

(xiv) Allegations have been made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner objected to or obstructed certai