Basanta Patra Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 22578 of 2025

¶3

Basanta Patra & Anr. ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Iswar Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P.2) Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Adv. (Intervenor)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER

17.11.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The gravamen of the present Writ Petition is the allegation that Opposite Party No.2/the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC has sought to forcibly dispossess the Petitioners from their private land and to lay a public road thereon without adhering to the mandate of law. The Petitioners contend that such action, undertaken without notice, survey, acquisition, or any lawful authority which violates their constitutional and statutory rights.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2025 17:59:25

¶16

2

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the land in question is situated in Mouza-Bhubaneswar Town, Unit-20, Jagamara, over which the Petitioners claim to have been in a long-standing peaceful possession. It is asserted that Opposite Party No.2, without determining the actual status of the land or initiating any acquisition process, issued Tender/Bid Reference No. BMC-DIV-11-17/2023-24 dated 11.10.2023 for construction of a paver road and drain for Lane Nos. 5 and 7 of Mallick Complex in Ward No.50. According to the Petitioners, this tender itself indicates the intention of the BMC to utilize their land for a public project without following due procedure.

¶18

It is further alleged that pursuant to the said tender, staff of BMC unlawfully entered upon the Petitioners’ land, dug earth, and initiated construction activity, thereby attempting to dispossess the Petitioners without authority of law. Learned counsel further submits that such unilateral action is impermissible in view of the settled principle that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the BMC contends that the Corporation has not encroached upon any private land and that resistance is being created by certain individuals under the mistaken belief that their land is being usurped. It is argued that

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2025 17:59:25

¶21

3

¶22

the proposed construction is confined to public land vested in the Municipality and that the objections raised by the Petitioners are unfounded.

¶23

From the rival contentions, it is evident that the core dispute pertains to the identity and character of the land. Whether the land forms part of the public road or constitutes private property is a matter of factual determination, which must necessarily precede any municipal construction activity. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that a proper demarcation by competent authorities is indispensable for resolving the controversy. Accordingly, the Bhubaneswar Municipal Authority and the local Revenue Authority are directed to undertake a joint demarcation of the land in question in the presence of the Petitioners and the intervenor, both of whom are necessary stakeholders.

¶24

The Petitioners shall file an undertaking that they shall not cause any obstruction or create any law-and-order issue during the course of the demarcation. The BMC is permitted to seek logistical assistance from the local police to ensure that the demarcation exercise is carried out peacefully and efficiently. The entire exercise shall be completed within ten (10) days from today.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2025 17:59:25

¶27

4

¶28

It is further clarified that upon completion of the demarcation, the BMC Authorities as well as local residents shall ensure that the construction of the paver road proceeds smoothly and without obstruction, insofar as such construction is found to be on land legally available for public use. Public infrastructure projects cannot be stalled where they are undertaken on public land and in public interest.

¶29

10.As an interim protective measure, and to prevent any irreparable harm pending the factual determination, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners until the demarcation exercise is concluded.

¶30

11.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶31

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶32

Murmu

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2025 17:59:25

Basanta Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Ch.Nayak Vs State and Ors.

Jharana Das Vs State of Odisha

Jhudhistira Sethy Vs Union of India

Nityananda Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Kumar Das Vs Dhenkanal Municipality, Dhenkanal

Gokula Nanda Bej Vs State of Odisha