Sonali Behera Vs State of Odisha

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that t he Opposite Parties are no w proceeding for eviction of the P etitioner by loudspeaker a nnouncement without granting her any opportunity of h earing.

¶16

It is further sub m itted that the Petitioner’s family has b een residing over the case l and for several decades and that the dwelling standing thereo n is the only residential accommodatio n available to the family. T h e Petitioner also relies upon th e household enumeration m a de under the USHA Survey in conne c tion with the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Jul-2026 18:04:26

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

erstwhile Raj i v Awas Yojana and contends that landright certificate s have been issued to certain simi l arly situated households, whi l e her claims has not yet been considered.

¶21

It is settled th a t no person can claim an indefea s ible right to encroach upon p ublic, municipal or other land merel y on the basis of long possessi o n. Equally, the absence of title does not authorise summary dispo s session.

¶22

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation¹ , th e Constitution Bench held that the right to livelihood is an integral f a cet of Article 21, while clarifying that no right to occupy public la n d is thereby created. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan² , the Supreme Court observed th a t where an occupation has subsisted for a considerable perio d , reasonable notice before r e moval is necessary. The right to s helter as an element of a life of dignity was also recognised in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.³

¶23

The claim to titl e over the land and the claim to fair consideration under a land-rig h t, housing or rehabilitation framework are distinct. A ration card, e l ectricity connection or survey docu m ent does not confer title. Lik e wise, enumeration under the USHA S urvey or the Rajiv Awas Yoj a na is not an allotment or a Bhumi Ad h ikar Praman Patra. It is, h o wever, relevant material which t h e competent

¶24

1 (1985) 3 SCC 545

¶25

2 (1997) 11 SCC 121

¶26

3 (1996) 2 SCC 549 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Jul-2026 18:04:26

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

authority cann o t ignore, particularly whe r e similarly situated survey e d households are stated to have r eceived land rights.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Commissioner, B hubaneswar Municipal Cor p oration, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4), to grant an effective opport u nity of hearing to the Petitioner and v e rify: (i) her status in the USHA Survey and the records c o nnected with the erstwhile R a jiv Awas Yojana or any successor land-right or housing framew o rk; (ii) whether she w as merely enumerated or included i n the final list of eligible beneficiaries; (iii) the owners h ip, classification and legal assignabili t y of the case land; and

¶30

(iv) the basis on which land-right certificates, if any, w ere issued to persons claimed to be similarly situated.

¶31

O.P. No.4 shall thereafter pass a reasoned and spea k ing order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks fro m the date of receipt of a certi f ied copy of this order along with a co p y of the Writ Petition. If settl e ment of the case land is legally impe r missible, the authority shall s e parately consider whether the Petitioner is eligible for alternative h o using, relocation or any other rehabil i tation benefit available under l aw or policy.

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Jul-2026 18:04:26

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Till the aforesai d exercise is completed and t h e reasoned order is commu n icated to the Petitioner, she shall not b e evicted and the residential s tructure standing over the case lan d shall not be demolished. In t h e event of rejection of the claim, no c o ercive action shall be taken f o r a further period of fifteen days fro m the date of communication of the order, enabling the Petitione r to avail the remedy availabl e in law.

¶35

11.It is clarified t h at this Court has not adjudicated t h e title of the Petitioner over t he case land and has not directed its automatic settlement in h e r favour. The limited protection gr a nted by this order shall not c reate any equity or proprietary righ t in favour of the Petitioner.

¶36

12.Urgent certifie d copy of this order be grante d on proper application.

¶37

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶38

Murmu

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Jul-2026 18:04:26

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Sonali Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Behera 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

Rabi Mahakhud Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pandaba Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sharat Chandra Barik Vs Amit Ranjan Hotta, Tahasildar, Khaira

Villagers of Kusupangi Gram Panchayat Vs State of Odisha

Ganeswar Beura Vs State of Odisha