Bhairab Chandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.2806 of 2025

¶4

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).

¶5

Bhairab Chandra Sahu …. Petitioner(s)

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Party (s)

¶9

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra, Adv.

¶11

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶14

DATE OF HEARING:-24.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025

¶15

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

¶16

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the demolition order dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur, and to restrain the Opposite Parties from evicting him from the subject premises.

¶17

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 10

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶21

(i) The Petitioner has been in possession of the premises in question since 1979, by virtue of a letter dated 21.01.1979. The land was originally allocated for the LakhaKarigarSamabayaSamiti, a cooperative society formed in 1949 for the promotion of Lakha Handicrafts, a traditional art form of Nabrangpur. The petitioner claims that the State Government, under proper sanction and approval, had allowed the society to use 0.48 cents of land in Mouza Sadasibapur (Plot No. 654, Khata No. 1050).

¶22

(ii) A community centre building was constructed on the said land using MLALAD funds during 2018–2019, with Rs. 3,00,000 sanctioned by the then local MLA to promote Lakha products and uplift local artisans.

¶23

(iii) Subsequently, a meeting was held on 20.01.2025, chaired by the SubCollector, Nabarangpur, with the Deputy Director (Handicraft) as Member-Convenor, and the Tahasildar and Assistant Executive Engineer, R&B Department as members. During this meeting, the Deputy Director (Handicraft) informed that the Department of Handloom, Textiles & Handicrafts, Government of Odisha, had granted approval for demolition of the existing structure vide letter No. 5241 dated 17.07.2023.

¶24

(iv) The Assistant Executive Engineer (R&B), Nabarangpur, in his letter No. 231 dated 12.09.2021, had declared the building as structurally unsafe and recommended urgent demolition to prevent any mishap.

¶25

(v) Pursuant to the meeting, the Deputy Director (Handicraft) issued a notice to the petitioner (Sri Bhairab Chandra Sahu) on 20.01.2025,

¶26

Page 2 of 10

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶28

directing him to vacate the premises within three days. The notice cited the building’s unsafe condition as a threat to life and property. Thereafter, the Tahasildar issued the final demolition notice on 22.01.2025 vide Letter No. 277, setting 29.01.2025 as the deadline for evacuation and demolition.

¶29

(vi) The land and building in question are recorded in the name of the Lakha Karigara Samabaya Samiti, and not in the name of the petitioner. The authorities contend that the Deputy Director (Handicraft) exercises control over the property on behalf of the State. The claim made by the petitioner regarding long-standing possession (over 40 years) is described as unfounded and unsupported by any documentary evidence by the opposite parties.

¶30

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶31

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶32

(i) No show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given before issuing the demolition order. The Petitioner was not allowed to defend the legality of the possession or the safety of the building.

¶33

(ii) The Petitioner’s possession is longstanding and based on sanctioned governmental orders. Construction of the building was done lawfully with public funds under a government development scheme. The claim that the building is "unsafe" is arbitrary and unsupported by any technical assessment.

¶34

Page 3 of 10

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶36

(iii) The cooperative society supports over 30 families, and the land is central to their professional survival. Eviction would result in loss of livelihood, economic destabilization, and destruction of a traditional craft that contributes to the region’s identity. Nabrangpur district is recognized across the State and nation for Lakha Handicrafts, largely due to the contribution of this cooperative society.

¶37

(iv) The Petitioner argues that Opposite Party No. 4 had no jurisdiction to initiate the eviction proceedings, as the State has already alienated its title over the land through long-standing possession and implied tenancy.

¶38

(v) The action appears to be influenced by local vested interests rather than any public purpose or policy. There is no emergent public necessity or statutory backing warranting such coercive action, especially against a legally sanctioned public-benefit structure.

¶39

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶40

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties/ State Mr. Sonak Mishra earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶41

(i) The opposite parties argue that the demolition order is legally valid, having been issued based on an official meeting, government approval, and an engineering report declaring the building unsafe. Tahasildar’s notice was not arbitrary, but based on formal instructions received from competent authorities in a duly constituted meeting.

¶42

(ii) The Petitioner has no documentary proof of ownership or lawful possession. The property is clearly recorded in the name of the

¶43

Page 4 of 10

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶45

cooperative society, and therefore State authorities retain jurisdiction, especially through the Deputy Director (Handicraft), Nabarangpur.

¶46

(iii) The demolition is presented as a public safety measure, supported by expert opinion and engineering certification. Failure to act would pose a risk to the public, and hence, State intervention was necessary and lawful.

¶47

(iv) The Petitioner’s claim of possession for more than 40 years is expressly denied, and it is argued that no substantial evidence has been submitted in support. The petitioner’s continued occupation is not backed by any valid lease, license, or allotment order.

¶48

(v) The assertion that the Tahasildar lacked jurisdiction to issue the demolition order is categorically denied. The action taken was within the statutory authority of the Tahasildar, in coordination with other relevant administrative officers.

¶49

(vi) Any allegations, assertions, or claims in the Writ Petition not specifically admitted are deemed to have been denied.

¶50

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶51

5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

¶52

6. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the petitioner, claiming long-standing possession over the property of Lakha Karigar Samabaya Samiti since 1979, challenges the demolition order dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur. While the petitioner asserts lawful occupation backed by government support and livelihood dependence of over 30 families, the opposite parties

¶53

Page 5 of 10

¶54

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶55

maintain that the building is unsafe, and the demolition was undertaken lawfully following expert assessment, official approval, and due process through a meeting convened by the Sub-Collector.

¶56

7. While dealing with a matter of this nature, the Court is required to carefully balance the weight of tradition with the demands of public safety. Situations often arise where long-standing occupation and cultural significance come into conflict with the need for administrative action, especially where questions of structural safety are involved. In the present case, the petitioner’s continued possession since 1979 and the role played by the Lakha Handicrafts community in sustaining local livelihoods are not without merit. However, such considerations cannot outweigh the fundamental duty of the State to protect life and prevent harm, particularly when supported by expert assessment that points to imminent risk.

¶57

8. Structural safety is not a matter to be guided by personal sentiment but one that falls squarely within the domain of public concern. When a competent technical authority, such as the Assistant Executive Engineer of the R and B Division, certifies a building as unsafe, and such a conclusion is supported by material on record, the State cannot remain a silent spectator. It becomes the Constitutional duty of the State to intervene. Any hesitation or delay in acting upon such findings may lead to consequences that are not only irreversible but potentially tragic, especially in densely occupied areas like Sankhari Street where the risk to life and property is immediate and real.

¶58

Page 6 of 10

¶59

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶60

9. This is not a novel issue. A similar matter concerning the safety of buildings was considered by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its own motion (In the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Others .¹ The relevant excerpts are produced below:

¶61

“In our considered opinion, there is an urgent need of a collective social consciousness to be inculcated in our fellow citizens living in unsafe buildings. The adamant attitude of residents to vacate the buildings which are declared to be ruinous needs to be strictly dealt. The municipal machinery needs to enforce the mandatory compliance of structural audits to be submitted by the owners of the buildings as per the requirement of law, failing which, actions need to be taken against such owners who do not undertake structural audit of old buildings. This is the need of the hour. There is yet another aspect, also there is no guarantee that the new buildings (less than 30 years old) are safe and would not collapse as the experience has shown. In regard to such buildings, the municipal authorities are required to take all precautions also of securing an undertaking from the developer/builder or from whosoever is constructing the building, that the entire structure of the building would be safe for its occupants on all aspects of its user, for the stipulated period as the law may require, and as to a declaration as to the safe life of the building in normal circumstances.”

¶62

10. The contention that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the demolition order, though, at first glance, persuasive, loses much of its strength when viewed against the

¶63

1SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2020

¶64

Page 7 of 10

¶65

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶66

factual backdrop. A meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Sub Collector with the participation of all relevant authorities, wherein the condition of the building and the necessity of its demolition were duly deliberated. Pursuant to this, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 20 January 2025, calling upon him to vacate the premises within three days, followed by a formal demolition notice on 22 January 2025. Given the imminent risk posed by the unsafe condition of the structure, the urgency of the situation warranted immediate administrative intervention. In circumstances where delay may result in danger to life or property, procedural requirements, though ordinarily vital, may give way to the larger constitutional principle of salus populi suprema lex : the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

¶67

11. It is also a well-settled principle that no person can claim indefeasible rights over government or cooperative property without valid title or legal authorization. This position has been elaborated upon in plethora of judicial precedents, including the case of R. Hanumaiah and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors.² Relevant excerpts are produced below:

¶68

“ Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In order to oust or defeat the title of the government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of

¶69

2(2010) SCC 203.

¶70

Page 8 of 10

¶71

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶72

more than thirty years with the knowledge of the government. To claim adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient. “

¶73

12. The petitioner’s assertion of over 40 years of possession, though sympathetic, does not confer ownership or immunity from statutory compliance, especially when the building in question is recorded in the name of the Lakha Karigar Samabaya Samiti and controlled by the Deputy Director (Handicrafts), a public authority. Occupation alone, however longstanding, cannot evolve into lawful entitlement absent express recognition or regularization.

¶74

13. While this Court acknowledges the cultural and economic value of the Lakha Handicrafts community, it must also underscore the obligation of the State to protect its citizens from unsafe infrastructure. Public buildings, especially those accessible to multiple families or artisans, carry with them an inherent duty of safety assurance. The demolition of unsafe structures, though regrettable in its impact on tradition or livelihood, is a necessary exercise in preserving life and ensuring lawful use of space.

¶75

14. In the considered view of this Court, the process adopted by the authorities was neither arbitrary nor malafide. It was preceded by

¶76

Page 9 of 10

¶77

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07

¶78

expert consultation, administrative deliberation, and communication to the affected party. While the petitioner may pursue alternative legal remedies for relocation, rehabilitation, or reassessment, the challenge to the demolition order on the grounds of illegality or lack of jurisdiction does not merit interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶79

V. CONCLUSION:

¶80

15. In light of the above analysis, thisWrit Petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The Petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate authorities for alternate reliefs in accordance with law.

¶81

16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶82

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶83

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25^th April, 2025/

¶84

Page 10 of 10

Bhairab Chandra Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairab Chandra Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinmaya Tarai @ Chinku Vs State of Odisha

Lingaraj Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Periwal Vs State of Odisha

Aswini Kumar Baral Vs State

Binod Bhaban Club Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata Vs State of Odisha