Disposed¶74

Tarun Kumar Mohanta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Feb 2026WP(C)/1732/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OPLE Act 1972 jurisdiction; OPP (EUO) Act 1972 municipal areas; Tahasildar eviction notice quashed; Rairangpur Municipality; Encroachment Case No.98 of 2025; Jasobant Parida 2024 (I) OLR 278 relied upon; Estate Officer under Section 3 OPP (EUO) Act; Notification dated 27 January 2020 Revenue and Disaster Management Department; unauthorized encroachment Plot No.847 mouza-Anladuba; Articles 226/227 judicial review of encroachment proceedings; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notice dated 03.01.2026 of the Tahasildar, Rairangpur (Annexure-6) quashed and the Tahasildar's finding on municipal-limit eviction powers set aside; Tahasildar left free to proceed as Estate Officer under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972. ¶74

Tarun Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahasildar, Rairangpur (Opposite Party No.2) has jurisdiction to proceed under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 against land within Rairangpur Municipality area, or whether such municipal-area premises must instead be proceeded against under the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

¶24

Court's answer

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Jasobant Parida vs. State of Odisha and others, 2024 (I) OLR 278, premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality are 'Public Premises' and action against unauthorized occupation must be taken under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972; accordingly, the Tahasildar's statement that Tahasildars/Additional Tahasildars are empowered to carry out eviction even within municipal limits is found to be without supporting reason and such finding is set aside.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice of the Tahasildar, Rairangpur dated 03.01.2026 served under Annexure-6 directing eviction of the Petitioner is quashed.

¶69

Key takeaways

Since all Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars of the State have been declared Estate Officers in terms of Section 3 of the OPP (EUO) Act 1972 by Notification dated 27th January 2020 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department (Annexure-7), the present order shall not stand in the way of the Tahasildar proceeding as Estate Officer under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 against unauthorized encroachers, including the Petitioner — observed on the request of the learned A.G.A.obiter¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India heard by B.P. Routray, J. The Petitioner challenged a notice dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure-6) of the Tahasildar, Rairangpur initiating eviction for alleged unauthorized encroachment of Plot No.847, Khata No.283, mouza-Anladuba (Encroachment Case No.98 of 2025) within the notified area of Rairangpur Municipality, while rejecting the Petitioner's objection that the Tahasildar lacked authority under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act). Relying on the Division Bench decision in Jasobant Parida vs. State of Odisha and others, 2024 (I) OLR 278, the Court held that premises within a Municipality are 'Public Premises' under the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, so action must follow that Act rather than the OPLE Act; the Tahasildar's contrary finding was unsupported and was set aside, and the impugned notice was quashed. The Court further observed that Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars stand declared Estate Officers under Section 3 of the OPP (EUO) Act 1972 by Notification dated 27th January 2020 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department (Annexure-7) and may therefore proceed as Estate Officers against unauthorized encroachers, including the Petitioner. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026

¶5

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

¶6

Tarun Kumar Mohanta …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties

¶7

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Panda, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

18^th February 2026

¶12

B.P. Routray, J.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Panda, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and

¶14

Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-

¶15

Opposite Party.

¶16

2. The Petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 03.01.2026

¶17

issued by the Tahasildar, Rairangpur under Annexure-6 directing for

¶18

eviction of unauthorized encroachment of the Petitioner while rejecting

¶19

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026

¶20

Page 1 of 9

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶23

his contention questioning the authority of the Tahasildar to proceed under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “OPLE Act”).

¶24

3. The entire contention of the Petitioner is that that Tahasildar, Rairangpur (Opposite Party No.2) has no jurisdiction to proceed under the OPLE Act within Rairangpur Municipality area as the provisions of the OPLE Act is not applicable to such lands.

¶25

4. A Division Bench of our Court in Jasobant Parida vs. State of

¶26

Odisha and others, 2024 (I) OLR—278, while dealing with an order of eviction issued under the provisions of OPLE Act has answered a similar issue that, any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be an industrial estate, it can be construed to be a public premises and therefore the action need to be taken against the unauthorized encroachers is in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, “OPP (EUO) Act”). The relevant observations read as follows:-

¶27

“9. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is,

¶28

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 2 of 9

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶31

“Whether the provisions of OPLE Act, 1972 are applicable to the cases of unauthorised eviction and whether the statutory authorities under the said Act have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of eviction involved in respect of the land covered under Municipalities or NACs coming under urban area in view of the fact that the legislature have subsequently legislated the provisions of OPP Act, 1972 to deal with such cases in respect of the land under Municipality or NAC area?”

¶32

xxx xxx xxx

¶33

The above mentioned provisions, under Subsections(a) to (e) of Section 2 of the Act, prescribe which can be termed as the property of the Government. The vires of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1954, as amended by the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (Amendment) Act, 1970, was challenged in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 1584 of 1968. This Court held that Sec. 3 of the Act is void as it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. In a series of cases, this Court has also earlier observed that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were void. As Sections 3, 5 and 6 forming the very core were void, the Court held the entire Act including the amending Act of 1970 to be void. Thereby, it was necessary to effect the reenactment of the law permanently to replace the Ordinance. Under the Scheme of the Act it is only encroachment of Government land either by construction of house or otherwise, which can form the subject-matter of a proceeding under the Act. Since OPLE Act, 1972 is enacted to provide for prevention of unauthorized occupation of lands, which are the Government property as mentioned in Section 2 of the Act, the action

¶34

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026

¶35

Page 3 of 9

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶38

should be taken in conformity with the said provisions of the Act.

¶39

The Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, i.e., Odisha Act 7 of 1972 was assented to by the President on 9th February, 1972 to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. “Public Premises” has been defined under Section 2 (f) to the following effect:-

¶40

“(f) “Public Premises” means any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be an industrial estate and-

¶41

(i) belong to or taken on lease by the State Government or the Board or by any Company, Corporation, [Municipality], Improvement Trust, Special Planning Authority; or University; or (ii) requisitioned by the State Government.”

¶42

On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is made clear that ‘Municipality’ has been substituted by O.A. 1 of 2011O.G.E. No. 61 dated 03.01.2011. It is specifically mentioned that “Public Premises” means any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be an industrial estate. Therefore, taking into account the object and reasons of enactment of OPLE Act vis-a-vis OPP Act, the purpose is distinct and clear to the extent that OPLE Act has been enacted to provide for prevention of unauthorized occupation of lands which are the property of the Government, whereas OPP Act has been enacted to provide for eviction of unauthorized occupants from “Public Premises” and for certain incidental matters.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 4 of 9

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶46

Thereby, two separate Acts have been enacted for two distinct purposes, as mentioned above. In view of aforesaid situation, while interpreting the words or even while departing strict words used, the Court may find out the intention of the legislation by referring to the statements of objects and reasons.

¶47

Therefore, taking into consideration the objects and reasons for enactment of two separate Acts for two distinct purposes, it is made clear that in view of the provisions contained in Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act, any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be an industrial estate, it can be construed to be “Public Premises”. If there is unauthorized occupation without authority of law for such occupation, then action shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of OPP Act, 1972. Section 2 (g) also defines unauthorized occupation, which reads as follows:-

¶48

“Unauthorised Occupation" in relation to any public premises means the occupation by the person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.

¶49

xxx xxx xxx

¶50

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026

¶51

Page 5 of 9

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶54

In view of the aforementioned provision, it is the Estate Officer, as notified by the Government of Odisha by way of notification, can initiate proceeding for eviction from the “Public Premises” within the meaning of OPP Act, 1972 by following due procedure by the Estate Officer for the purpose of the Act. Even Section 5 of the Act prescribes the eviction of unauthorised occupants and mechanisms has also been prescribed under the said Act, i.e., under Section 8 with regard to power of Estate Officer, under Section-9 with regard to appeals, under Section 13 regarding imposition of penalty and under Section 14 bars of suit and proceeding has been provided for. Thus, there is no iota of doubt that by insertion of “Municipality” to the definition of Public Premises, as envisaged under Section 2 (f) with effect from 03.1.2011, the OPP Act is applicable to the municipal areas.

¶55

Admittedly, in the present case, the Tahasildar respondent no.5 had issued a notice of show cause on 13.04.2012 in Encroachment Case No. 198/2012 under the provisions of OPLE Act for eviction, while “Municipality” has been incorporated by way of amendment to the OPP Act 1972, which has come into force with effect from 03.01.2011. Therefore, any notice given on 13.04.2012 in Encroachment Case No. 198/2012 by the Tahasildar is without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eye of law.

¶56

If very initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, in view of the insertion of “Municipality” to the definition of “Public Premises” under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act. As such, the Estate Officer notified by the State Government under Section 3 of the OPP Act, 1972 has got only jurisdiction to issue such notice and not the Tahasildar under the OPLE Act.

¶57

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 6 of 9

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶60

xxx xxx xxx

¶61

Therefore, if a proceeding initiated under the OPLE Act, 1972 by issuing notice of eviction by the Tahasildar having no jurisdiction, any order passed by him is nullity in the eye of law and any consequential steps taken under the said Act by the respective authorities also cannot be sustained as they have no jurisdiction, thereby such orders are nullity in the eye of law.

¶62

Under the OPP Act, the Estate Officer gets jurisdiction under Section 4(1) only where the premises are Public Premises. Section 2(f) of the OPP Act has defined Public Premises. In order that a premises would be Public Premises, if it is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council or Notified Area Council. By way of amendment to the definition of “Public Premises” under Section 2 (f) “Municipality” has been incorporated by way of gazette notification issued on 03.01.2011 that the municipal area comes under the definition of “Public Premises”. Therefore, Kamakhyanagar Notified Area Council, having come under the definition of Public Premises under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act, the action for eviction can only be taken by the competent authority under Section 4 (1) of the OPP Act, i.e., by the Estate Officer and not by the Tahasildar.”

¶63

5. In the present case at hand, the State has not filed its counter and it is admitted at the Bar that the encroached area as per the Encroachment Case No.98 of 2025 is concerning Plot No.847 under Khata No.283 of mouza-Anladuba and the same is coming within the

¶64

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 7 of 9

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶67

notified area of Rairangpur Municipality. The Petitioner has though raised the question of jurisdiction of Tahasildar under the OPLE Act, but the same has been rejected by the Tahasildar as per Annexure-6.

¶68

6. It is further seen that the Tahasildar while rejecting the contention of the Petitioner questioning his jurisdiction to initiate the encroachment proceeding in terms of the provisions of the OPLE Act, has further held that the Tahasildar/Additional Tahasildar are empowered to carry out eviction even within the municipal limits. This statement of the Tahasildar is found without supported by any reason and in view of the law propounded by this Court in Jasobant Parida’s case (supra), such finding of the Tahasildar is liable to be set aside.

¶69

7. Accordingly, the impugned notice of the Tahasildar, Rairangpur dated 03.01.2026 under Annexure-6 directing for eviction of the Petitioner is quashed. At the same time, it is observed that, all the Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars of the State by virtue of Notification dated 27^th January 2020 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department (Annexure-7) have been declared as Estate Officers in terms of the provisions under Section 3 of the OPP (EUO) Act 1972 to exercise the power in respect of their jurisdiction as Estate

¶70

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 8 of 9

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24

¶73

Officers. So, as prayed by Mr. D. Nayak, learned A.G.A., it is further observed that present order shall not stand on the way of the Tahasildar to proceed as Estate Officer under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 in respect of unauthorized encroachers, including the Petitioner.

¶74

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶75

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶76

B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary

¶77

W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026

¶78

Page 9 of 9

Tarun Kumar Mohanta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Mohanta 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

Siba Prasad Parida Vs State of Odisha

Parikshit Barik Vs State of Odisha

Nityananda Das Vs State of Odisha

Bipin Bihari Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Patra Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Behera Vs State of Odisha