Manoranjan Panda Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶20

By filing the present writ application, the Petitioners have sought for the following relief:-

¶21

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶22

(i) Admit the present Writ Petition, issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) shall not be issued in favour of the Petitioners;

¶23

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the proceedings initiated under

¶24

Page 1 of 5.

¶25

Section 91 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 in UAP No.27/2026, UAP No.28/2026 and UAP No.29/2026 (or such other proceeding numbers as may be applicable), as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Odisha Bhoodan and Gramadan Act and Rules;

¶26

(iii) Declare that the proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 are not maintainable against the Petitioners in respect of the lands settled through Odisha Bhoodan Yagna Samittee and possessed by them pursuant to such settlement;

¶27

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Opposite Party Nos.I to 3, 7, 8 and 9 to take necessary steps for confirmation of the Bhoodan declaration, settlement and distribution made by the Odisha Bhoodan Yagna Samittee and to effect necessary correction of the Record-of-Rights in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Bhoodan and Gramadan Act, 1970 and Rules framed thereunder;

¶28

(v) Declare the demolition and eviction action undertaken by the Opposite Parties against the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in the earlier writ proceedings concerning the same subject matter;

¶29

(vi) Direct the Opposite Parties Jointly and severally to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioners for the illegal demolition of their residential houses, loss of movable and immovable properties, mental agony, displacement and violation of their constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, the quantum of which may be assessed by this Hon'ble Court or by an authority appointed under its supervision;”

¶30

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioners were settled with the land by the Bhoodan Samiti under the provisions of the Odisha Bhoodan and Gramadan Act, 1970. He further contended that since the date of settlement, the Petitioners have been occupying the land in question and they

¶31

Page 2 of 5.

¶32

are residing there by constructing their respective residential houses. He further submitted that earlier an attempt was made to evict the Petitioners by demolishing their residential houses which has been challenged before this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in the present writ application the Petitioners being aggrieved by the show cause notice by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation under Section 91 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 have approached this court by filing the present writ application. While assailing the show cause notice, the learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that although the land was settled in favour of the Petitioners much prior to the Odisha Development Authorities Act, came to force in the year 1982 the Opposite Parties have initiated a proceeding under Section 91 of the ODA Act against the present Petitioners. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the initiation of the proceeding under Section 91 of the ODA Act, 1982 is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the show cause notice by filing the present writ application.

¶34

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in this matter. Learned counsel for the State submitted that taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and on a careful examination of the background facts, it appears that the Petitioners have approached this Court by challenging the show

¶35

Page 3 of 5.

¶36

cause notice issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation under Section 91 of the ODA Act, 1982. He further contended that the present writ application is not maintainable as the Petitioners have challenged the show cause notice . He further submitted that it is open to the Petitioners to raise any objection regarding the validity of the proceeding under the ODA Act, 1982 before the Competent forum. On such ground learned counsel for the State contended that present writ application is completely misconceived and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsels for the respective parties on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the fact that the Petitioners have approached this Court assailing the show cause notice dated 27.04.2026 at Annexure-9 issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise issue of maintainability of the proceeding first before the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation by filing an appropriate application within three weeks. In such eventuality, the BMC after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned decide the issue strictly in accordance with law within eight weeks thereof.

¶38

It is further directed that in the event there is any delay in taking a decision is taken on the application of the Petitioners by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner.

¶39