Srikanta Nayak Vs State

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-mentioned Writ Petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.21505 of 2014 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

The Petitioner, in W.P.(C) No.21505 of 2014, has assailed the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Opposite Party

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

¶19

2

¶20

No.2/Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No.21 of 2012 filed by the Opposite Party No.5/ VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla reversing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No.28 of 2012 and confirming the order of eviction dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.4/ Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No.7/4-26/2011.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014 ( Kabiraj Jena vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) and batch of Writ Petitions . Hence, she submits that these Writ Petitions may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Kabiraj Jena (supra).

¶22

Learned counsel for the State submit that he has no objection, if these matters are disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Kabiraj Jena (supra).

¶23

On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Kabiraj Jena (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 17.10.2025. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows:

¶24

“15 . In view of the foregoing discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed in part with the following directions:

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

¶27

3

¶28

a. The revisional order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No. 4 of 2012 is quashed. Consequentially, the appellate order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No. 31 of 2012 stands restored.

¶29

b. The foundational eviction order dated 06.01.2012 of the Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No. 7/4-21/2011 (and connected cases analogously situated) is set aside for want of jurisdiction and for failure to adhere to the statutorily intended coordination with the land-owning Irrigation Department during settlement operations.

¶30

c. It shall be open to the State/Irrigation Department, if so advised, to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law, subject to the following pre-conditions:

¶31

(a) A speaking determination identifying the precise plots, their vesting in the Irrigation Department, and whether any portion stands lawfully allotted/vested in VSS MCH;

¶32

(b) Any OPLE action, if warranted, shall be initiated by/at the instance of the competent estate authority of the landowning department, not merely on a generic reference;

¶33

(c) If settlement operations subsist or are re-opened, land identification/recordal issues shall be first addressed under the settlement regime;

¶34

(d) Fresh proceedings shall scrupulously comply with notice, opportunity, and reasoned orders, with due consideration of individual claims, duration of possession, and any policy on regularization/rehabilitation;

¶35

16 . The competent authority shall consider—and record reasons upon— whether, in light of the Collector’s 15.02.2012 correspondence and any extant Government policy, the Petitioners’ cluster admits of regularization/alternative rehabilitation, particularly if the land is outside the present VSS MCH campus and no immediate public purpose requires eviction.

¶36

17 . Until the completion of the exercise in Clause (c) and for a period of six months thereafter, the Petitioners shall not be dispossessed except in pursuance of fresh, lawful orders passed after compliance with due process. This protection shall not be construed to create any equitable title.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

¶39

4

¶40

18 . Any future challenge at the revisional stage by VSS MCH shall be entertained only upon prima facie proof that the specific plots in question are vested/allotted to it. Generic institutional interest will not suffice.

¶41

19 .Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶42

20 . Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the above-mentioned Writ Petitions stands vacated.”

¶43

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23452 of 2014, this Court is inclined to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.21505 of 2014 is allowed in part with the following directions:

¶44

a. The revisional order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Revision Case No. 21 of 2012 is quashed. Consequentially, the appellate order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur in OPLE Appeal No. 28 of 212 stands restored.

¶45

b. The foundational eviction order dated 06.01.2012 of the Tahasildar, Sambalpur in Encroachment Case No. 7/426/2011 (and connected cases analogously situated) is set aside for want of jurisdiction and for failure to adhere to the statutorily intended coordination with the land-owning Irrigation Department during settlement operations.

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

¶48

5

¶49

c. It shall be open to the State/Irrigation Department, if so advised, to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law, subject to the following pre-conditions:

¶50

(a) A speaking determination identifying the precise plots, their vesting in the Irrigation Department, and whether any portion stands lawfully allotted/vested in VSS Medical College and Hospital;

¶51

(b)Any OPLE action, if warranted, shall be initiated by/at the instance of the competent estate authority of the landowning department, not merely on a generic reference;

¶52

(c) If settlement operations subsist or are re-opened, land identification/recordal issues shall be first addressed under the settlement regime;

¶53

(d) Fresh proceedings shall scrupulously comply with notice, opportunity, and reasoned orders, with due consideration of individual claims, duration of possession, and any policy on regularization/rehabilitation;

¶54

The competent authority shall consider—and record reasons upon—whether, in light of the Collector’s 15.02.2012 correspondence and any extant Government policy, the Petitioners’ cluster admits of regularization/alternative rehabilitation, particularly if the land is outside the present VSS

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

¶57

6

¶58

Medical College and Hospital campus and no immediate public purpose requires eviction.

¶59

Until the completion of the exercise in Clause (c) and for a period of six months thereafter, the Petitioner(s) shall not be dispossessed except in pursuance of fresh, lawful orders passed after compliance with due process. This protection shall not be construed to create any equitable title.

¶60

10.Any future challenge at the revisional stage by VSS Medical College and Hospital shall be entertained only upon prima facie proof that the specific plots in question are vested/allotted to it. Generic institutional interest will not suffice.

¶61

11.Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶62

12.Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the abovementioned Writ Petitions stands vacated.

¶63

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶64

Murmu

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Nov-2025 13:38:58

Srikanta Nayak v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

Srikanta Nayak v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Kumar Mohapatra Vs the Regional Director, Esi Corporation, Bbsr

Shymasundar Das Vs State of Odisha

Mrutyunjaya Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Samrat Dumal Vs State

Manjit Kaur Sharma Vs State

Sanjay Ku.Banchhor Vs State