Basanta Digi Vs State of Odisha

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶3

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

¶4

¶5

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024:

¶6

1. Basanta Digi Aged about 50 years Son of Late Dasarathi Digi.

¶7

2. Sukul Hansda

¶8

Aged about 49 years Son of late Durga Charan Hansda.

¶9

3. Narayan Hansada Aged about 69 years Son of Jagannath Hansada.

¶10

4. Rajen Puran Aged about 32 years Son of Lalu Puran.

¶11

5. Shakuntala Hembram Aged about 47 years Wife of Padma Charan Hembram.

¶12

6. Srutimayee Murmu Aged about 40 years Wife of Ramadhuna Murmu.

¶13

7. Pan Hansada Aged about 54 years Wife of Late Makarachand Hansada.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶15

Page 1 of 88

¶16

All are residents of Village: Chunukoli, Mouza: Jagannathprasad, P.O.: Andharua, P.S.: Chandaka, District: Khordha, Pin: 751003 … Petitioners

¶17

-VERSUS-

¶18

1. State of Odisha Represented through Chief Secretary Department of General Administration Lok Seva Bhawan Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶19

2. Additional Chief Secretary Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Government of Odisha.

¶20

3. Additional Chief Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Government of Odisha.

¶21

4. Commissioner- cum -Secretary ST&SC Development Minorities & Backward Classes Welfare Department Government of Odisha.

¶22

5. Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Drinking Water Department.

¶23

6. Principal Secretary Works Department Addresses for O.P. Nos.1 to 6 Lok Seva Bhawan Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶25

Page 2 of 88

¶26

7. Secretary Bhubaneswar Development Authority Akash Shova Building Sachivalaya Marg Bhubaneswar-751001 Odisha, India.

¶27

8. Chief Engineer DPI and Roads, Odisha.

¶28

9. Chief Construction Engineer Central (R &B Circle), Bhubaneswar.

¶29

10. Superintending Engineer BBSR (R & B Division-III) Bhubaneswar.

¶30

11. Assistant Executive Engineer BBSR (R & B Sub-Division-III) Bhubaneswar.

¶31

Addresses for Opposite party Nos.8-11: Niraman Soudh, Keshari Nagar Unit-V, Bhubaneswar.

¶32

12. IDCO Represented by Chairman- cum -Managing Director IDCO Tower, Janpath Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶33

13. Collector and District Magistrate Khordha District At/P.O./District: Khordha.

¶34

14. Tahasildar Bhubaneswar At/P.O: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

¶35

… Opposite parties

¶36

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶37

Page 3 of 88

¶38

15. Biswajit Naik Aged about 47 years Son of Mahendranath Naik Resident of Kherasha P.O./P.S./District: Jagatsinghpur. 16. Ranjit Kumar Rout Aged about 67 years Son of Prahallad Rout Resident of Saja Lahanga P.O.: Sanango District: Jagatsinghpur. 17. Anirudha Biswal Aged about 70 years Son of Jadumani Biswal Resident of Olihan P.O.: Allisahi, P.S.: Kakatpur District: Puri. 18. Niranjan Sundry Aged about 69 years Son of Late Nimai Charan Sundry Resident of Dharma Vihar Plot No.209 P.O./P.S.: Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. … Interveners. W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025: Ranjan Nayak Aged about 40 years Son of Narayan Nayak At: Simuli, P.O./P.S.: Chandaka Bhubaneswar – 754 005 District: Khordha, Odisha. … Petitioner

¶39

-VERSUS-

¶40

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶41

Page 4 of 88

¶42

1. State of Odisha Represented through Commissioner- cum -Secretary Housing & Urban Development Department Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

¶43

2. Commissioner- cum -Secretary Department of Works Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

¶44

3. Secretary Bhubaneswar Development Authority Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶45

4. Collector- cum -District Magistrate, Khordha At/P.O./District: Khordha.

¶46

5. Chief Engineer Central (DPI & Road), Odisha;

¶47

6. Chief Construction Engineer Central (R& B Circle), Bhubaneswar;

¶48

7. Superintending Engineer Central (R & B Division-III), Bhubaneswar, Above opposite party Nos.5 to 7 are At: Nirman Soudh, Keshari Nagar, Unit-V Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha . … Opposite parties.

¶49

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶50

For the Petitioners	: M/s. Subash Mansingh,
(in W.P.(C) No.	Surendra Behera and
6497 of 2024)	Susanta Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Petitioner	: M/s. Gyaneswar Satpathy,
(in W.P.(C) No.	B.P.B. Satpathy and
15819 of 2025)	Rati Ranjan Jethi,Advocates.

¶51

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶52

Page 5 of 88

¶53

For the Opposite party Ms. Suman Pattanayak Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 14 Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Except 12 : Additional Government Advocates (in W.P.(C) No. 6497 of 2024)

¶54

For the Opposite party M/s. Dayananda Mohapatra, No.7 : Senior Advocate (in W.P.(C) No. assisted by 6497 of 2024) M/s. Manas Ranjan Pradhan, Jyotirmay Barik, Pranab Kumar Singh Deo and Sourav Kumar Rout, Advocates

¶55

For the Intervener Mr. Patitapaban Panda, Nos.15 to 18 : Advocate. (in W.P.(C) No. 6497 of 2024)

¶56

P R E S E N T:

¶57

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON

¶58

AND

¶59

HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶60

Dates of Hearing: 28.07.2025, 04.08.2025, 10.02.2026, 18.02.2026 & 20.02.2026

¶61

::

¶62

Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026

¶63

JUDGMENT

¶64

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

¶65

A. W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024:

¶66

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶67

Page 6 of 88

¶68

The petitioners, asserting to espouse the cause of tribal community claimed to be residing in forest area of Andharua Gram Panchayat in Khordha District in the vicinity of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opposing laying/construction of road said to have been deviated from the original Comprehensive Development Plan (“CDP”, for convenience) unauthorisedly in order to evict the occupants and demolish the dwelling houses of tribal community, places of religious shrines and community activity centre, that are supposed to be protected under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short, “the Forest Dwellers Act”), and crave for grant of following relief(s):

¶69

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be graciously pleased to:

¶70

a) Admit the writ application;

¶71

b) Call for the records;

¶72

c) Issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties as to why the action of the opposite parties No.8-11 will not be declared illegal, arbitrary, malicious and contrary to the law;

¶73

d) And if the opposite parties do not show cause, or show insufficient cause issue a writ of appropriate

¶74

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶75

Page 7 of 88

¶76

nature and/or other appropriate order/orders setting aside the illegal realignment of road as under Annexure-2;

¶77

e) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling the opposite parties to desist from implementing the illegal realignment of the 200 feet wide road without lawful authority and to proceed with the construction of the original road trajectory as notified in the Extraordinary Gazette on 14^th May, 2018 under Annexure-1;

¶78

f) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, nullifying the unlawful realignment of the road perpetrated by the Road Engineering Division Authorities;

¶79

g) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, restraining the opposite parties from executing the eviction and demolition of the villagers‟ dwelling houses and other structures without due process of law;

¶80

h) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper in the exalted pursuit of justice;

¶81

i) Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon‟ble Court, in its boundless wisdom, deems indispensable for the restoration of justice and the vindication of the villagers‟ rights;

¶82

j) And pass any other appropriate order/orders direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest equitable justice and fair play.

¶83

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶84

Page 8 of 88

¶85

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall remain ever pray.”

¶86

B. W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025:

¶87

The petitioner in this writ petition has approached this Court with the following prayer(s):

¶88

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a rule nisi in the nature writ of Mandamus and/or any other writ and/or writs, direction and/or directions, order and/or orders calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the road work taken as per Indian Road Congress Norms vide Annexure-3 (series) is now stalled/stopped since March, 2025, will not be started as soon as possible and should be completed without any further deviation within the time stipulated with the best interest of general public and/or the representation made vide Annexure-4 (series) should not be ventilated within a specific time;

¶89

If the opposite parties failed to show cause and/or show insufficient or false cause make the said Rule NISI absolute;

¶90

And/or pass any other appropriate order as appear just and proper in the fitness of the case.

¶91

And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶92

Factual matrix:

¶93

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024.—

¶94

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶95

Page 9 of 88

¶96

2. Proposing to lay 200 feet wide road from “Institute of Mathematics to Ekamrakanan via Infocity” after observing consultative process, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (“BDA”, for short) constituted under the provisions of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (“the ODA Act”, abbreviated) finalized the plan and alignment of proposed road.

¶97

2.1. The final Modified “Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)-02/2017” having got approval of the Government as required under Rule 16 of the Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983 (for short, “the ODA Rules”) vide Letter No.HUD-13-TP(DA)-PROJ-147/2017-26224, dated 13.11.2017 got published in the Extraordinary Issue No.743 of the Odisha Gazette dated 14.05.2018.

¶98

2.2. It is alleged that having no requisite authority, the Road Engineering Division Authority sought to alter the alignment of road by encroaching upon the subject land within the Gram Panchayat area. The said road is proposed to be realigned vide letter of approval dated 03.11.2023 issued by the Chief Engineer, (D.P.I. & Roads) Odisha-opposite party No.8. To ventilate the grievance, the petitioners, villagers of Village: Chunukoli, under Mouza: Jagannathprasad, Tahasil: Bhubaneswar in the district of Khordha, with an object to protect the interest of Adivasi community of the Andharua Gram

¶99

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶100

Page 10 of 88

¶101

Panchayat area, approached the Collector, Khordha, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the Road Engineering Division Authorities by submitting representation(s), which being not attended to, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶102

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025.—

¶103

3. In order to protect the interest of public, the petitioner came up before this Court to direct the authorities concerned to continue with the construction of four-lane road work from Institute of Mathematics to Ekamrakanan via Infocity from 5/700 to 7/640 kilometres in the district of Khordha under the modified Comprehensive Development Plan 02/2017 vide Bhubaneswar Development Authority Notification No.10470/BDA, dated 17.04.2018, published in the Extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette bearing No.743, dated 14.05.2018.

¶104

3.1. As responsible citizen, the petitioner preferred to draw attention of this Court by way of instant writ petition that in the tentative master plan of Bhubaneswar Development Authority, the earmarked road alignment was encountering a sharp curve which is considered by the Engineers vulnerable and risky for movement of vehicles and commuters. If the modified plan is not enforced/executed the road as originally proposed would

¶105

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶106

Page 11 of 88

¶107

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶108

be prone to accidents. Therefore, in the Gramasabha a resolution of the villagers was also passed in favour of the revised CDP. From the engineering point of view and keeping in mind road safety parameters it was felt expedient to modify the alignment basing on geographic design parameter such as minimum radius of curve, i.e ., 200 metres and better design speed, i.e . 50 kilometres per hour in conformity with the Indian Road Congress norms. It is submitted on information gathered from different sources that in the modified plan of alignment of the road, care is taken to utilise most of the Government land; nonetheless, minimal use of forest land and private land would be ensured. Taking into account the road safety measures in tune with the Indian Road Congress Norms the road alignment has been modified for public convenience to provide better connectivity to the fast expanding city. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer issued correspondence to the Chief Construction Engineer on 03.11.2023 and as per the modified plan and road alignment, construction work was entrusted to contractor by inviting public tender. The contractor has already commenced execution of major portion of the road work.

¶109

3.2. The petitioner has shown anxious concern about escalation of prices with the delay in completion of the expansion of the road work, which would involve not

¶110

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and Page 12 of 88

¶111

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶112

only burden on the State exchequer but also cause inconvenience to the public.

¶113

Hearing and arguments:

¶114

4. On 10.07.2025 when the matter in W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025 was taken up, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gyaneswar Satpathy, Advocate this writ petition was directed to be tagged to W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and for posting the matter on 24.07.2025.

¶115

4.1. On 24.07.2025 the following Order was passed:

¶116

“2. This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the behest of the petitioner flagging an issue that despite all steps have been taken by the Government to construct the road, the Government is reluctant in completing the same. According to them, the construction of an arterial road where large number of vehicles commutes but during the official hours, there is huge congestion which impedes the smooth plying of the other vehicles.

¶117

3. In course of the hearing, it appears that another Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(C) (PIL) No.6497 of 2024 has been filed by some of the persons raising objection to the construction of the road by the Government.

¶118

4. In the said writ petition, the affidavits are complete. According to the Government as well as the

¶119

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶120

Page 13 of 88

¶121

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶122

petitioner of the instant writ petition, the pendency of the said PIL has created a fetter in completing the constructions and unless that said PIL is finally disposed, it causes an immense injury and inconvenience to them. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners who filed W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024.

¶123

5. Since the said Public Interest Litigation is otherwise ready for final disposal, we therefore, direct the counsel for the State to contact Mr. Subhash Mansingh, learned Counsel who represented the Petitioners in the said writ petition and file the affidavit on service on the next date.

¶124

6. List this matter along with W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 on 28^th July, 2025 as a first case.”

¶125

4.2. The matter in W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025 has been listed along with W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 for couple of occasions and Sri Subash Mansingh, learned Advocate made his appearance in the matters, despite opportunity being granted to file affidavit in W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025, no affidavit has come to be filed.

¶126

5. Both the matters tagged together came up for hearing on 28.07.2025 and subsequently on 10.02.2026, 18.02.2026 and 20.02.2026. Since the matters were taken up and substantial hearing was progressed on 28.07.2025, during preparation for dictating the Order/Judgment this court wished to have certain clarifications from counsel appearing for both the sides

¶127

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶128

Page 14 of 88

¶129

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶130

to remove ambiguity in mind. Hence, the matter was placed for further hearing on subsequent dates. It is stated at the Bar that due to pendency of this case, the widening of the road could not proceed. On the consent of counsel appearing for respective parties, these matters were taken up together for final hearing and disposal.

¶131

6. Sri Subash Mansingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the provisions of Section 14 of the ODA Act read with Rule 17 of the ODA Rules, require mandatory consultative process ensuring participation of affected parties and stakeholders for the purpose of modification of Comprehensive Development Plan, which has not been undertaken; thereby, the authorities of the Road Engineering Department has transgressed statutory mandate. It is further stated that since the Grama Panchayat area does not fall within the dominion of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and forest clearance being not obtained, such modified plan for laying road by encroaching upon the forest land without protecting the original inhabitants cannot be sanctified.

¶132

6.1. He further alleged that the proposed deviation in the CDP and realignment by virtue of approval of the Road Engineering Division in the year 2023 smacks arbitrariness and collusion of the authorities-opposite parties inasmuch as to protect vested interest of the

¶133

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶134

Page 15 of 88

¶135

Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO).

¶136

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State in response to the contents of the writ petition and the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the reply contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintending Engineer (Roads and Building) Division No-III, Bhubaneswar, submitted that the revised alignment of road as reflected in Letter No.46267, dated 03.11.2023 is required to cater to the needs of the general public keeping in view growing population in and around Bhubaneswar City for easy ingress and egress. The proposed deviation/realignment of road is within the domain of the Engineering Department concerned and such proposal for construction of road was on the Government land. On the contrary the petitioners are opposing developmental activity sought to be undertaken by realigning the road to minimise accident risks. It is vehemently contested that the petitioners are supporting the encroachers for their vested interest in the garb of public interest.

¶137

7.1. It is clarified that construction of 200 feet road from “Institute of Mathematics to Ekamra Kanan via Infocity” from RD 5/700 to 7/640 Km 200 feet master plan road

¶138

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶139

Page 16 of 88

¶140

(left parallel road) has been proposed to be undertaken for the purpose of easy movement of traffic on the existing road. The original CDP of BDA in due course of time encountered difficulty for laying the road on account of sharp curve, which is felt as risky for commuters and accident prone for vehicular movement. Therefore, it is felt expedient to remove the encroachers from the Government land. However, care and caution have been ensured to protect the important structures. The realignment is suggested by taking into consideration safety parameters based on geometric design in conformity with the norms specified by the Indian Road Congress (IRC). A clear stand is taken by the opposite parties-Superintendent Engineering (R & B) Division No.III that the road construction is proposed to be undertaken on the encumbrance free land provided by the BDA and the District Administration and that too on the land belonging to the Government.

¶141

7.2. Expanding the arguments further, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the original CDP of BDA with approval by the Government was initiated in the year 2010, vide the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary dated 08.04.2010 and the same was modified by the said authority following procedure laid down under Section 14 of the ODA Act, 1982 vide CDP-02/2017, which is

¶142

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶143

Page 17 of 88

¶144

published in Extraordinary issue of Odisha Gazette on 14.05.2018.

¶145

7.3. Further submission made that the allegation that the road realignment runs into the Grama Panchayat area is not correct statement of fact inasmuch as the same is to be laid within the geographical limit of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Hence, the action sought to be undertaken by the opposite parties by evicting people and removing encroachments over the Government land for the purpose of construction of road as per realignment plan (published in the Gazette on 14.05.2018) cannot be objected to. The Superintending Engineer (R &B) Division No.III, Bhubaneswar by way of the affidavit dated 12.07.2024 asserted that “in the modified alignment of the road demolition of bare minimum important structures will take place and there will be no encroachment of reserve forest area. Keeping in view these parameters and the road safety angles the road alignment is modified for public convenience to provide connectivity to the expanding city space.”

¶146

7.4. Having taken this Court to Annexure-C/10 enclosed with the said counter affidavit emphasis is laid that the Notification dated 17.04.2018, ( vide Odisha Gazette Extraordinary No.743, dated 14.05.2018) in its caption heading very clearly stated as follows:

¶147

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶148

Page 18 of 88

¶149

“Bhubaneswar Development Authority Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar

¶150

Notification

¶151

The 17^th April, 2018 No.10470/BDA, Bhubaneswar

¶152

Whereas, the draft modified Comprehensive Development Plan-02/2017; in respect of 60 meter wide road from Ekamrakanan Pak to Pathargadia and Pathargadia to Nandankanan road in following mouzas under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in District Khordha was published as required Under Section 14(3) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 and Rule 17 of Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983 in the extraordinary issue of Oidsha Gazette vide No.1015, dated 27.05.2017, inviting objection or suggestion from all persons likely to be affected thereby within sixty days from the date of publication of the said notice in the Odisha Gazette.

¶153

Sl. No.	Mouza	Tahasil	Sl No.	Mouza	Tahasil
1	Jayadev Vihar	Bhubaneswar	5	Patia	Bhubaneswar
2	Bharatpur	Bhubaneswar	6	Pathargadia	Bhubaneswar
3	Chandrasekharpur	Bhubaneswar	7	Raghunathpurjali	Bhubaneswar
4	Jagannathprasad	Bhubaneswar

¶154

And whereas, objections or suggestions received during the stipulated period were been duly considered by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority.

¶155

And whereas, the same was submitted to the State Government for approval as required under Rule 16 of ODA Rules, 1983 and the same has been approved by the

¶156

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶157

Page 19 of 88

¶158

Government under Rule 16 of the Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983 vide letter no.HUD-13-TP(DA)PROJ-147/2017-26224 dated 13.11.2017. Now therefore it is brought to notice of all concerned that above said modification of CDP shall come into operation from the date of publication of this notice in the Odisha Gazette. This final Modified Comprehensive Development Plan02/2017 is available for inspection in the office of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority located at Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar, on all working days between 3.00-5.00 P.M.”

¶159

7.5. In the affidavit dated 16.08.2024 sworn to by the Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha it has been affirmed that the petitioners stated to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribes Community/ Adivasi people reside over the Government land in Chunukoli Basti coming under Mouza: Jagannathprasad under Bhubaneswar Tahasil is authorised. However, with regard to modified/revised CDP it is clarified that for construction of proposed road project, total area required is Ac.1.536 decimal of forest land comprising of following description:

¶160

_Name of the Village _	Forest land in Acre
Pathargadia	0.008
Sundarpur	1.525
Jagannathprasad	0.004
Total	1.536

¶161

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶162

Page 20 of 88

¶163

7.6. It is explained that the original CDP of BDA published in the year 2010 was Ac.2.203 decimal of the forest land, but in the revised CDP, the area of forest land has been reduced to Ac.1.536 decimal of which only Ac.0.004 decimal of forest land under Mouza: Jagannathprasad is required to be carved out for the purpose of the proposed realigned road. For the above said purpose due permission has already been obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer, Chandaka Wildlife Division, Bhubaneswar as required under Section 3(2) of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 vide Letter No.7830, dated 21.12.2023 read with corrigendum issued vide Memo No.5153, dated 14.08.2024.

¶164

7.7. It is also stated that for the purpose of realignment by way of modified CDP, necessary requirement under Section 14 of the ODA Act has been followed by the BDA keeping in view road safety angles and it is also ensured that care would be taken for bare minimum demolition of residential structures. It is ensured that wherever necessary, to remove encroachments over the Government land necessary for laying the road to carry out the (re)alignment as per Modified CDP due process of law has been and/or would be undertaken and necessary steps for eviction of illegal encroachments shall also be ensured. Therefore, it is submitted that the

¶165

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶166

Page 21 of 88

¶167

apprehension of the petitioners is without comprehension and bereft of any foundational fact.

¶168

8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Director of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development, Minority and Backward Class Welfare Department, asserting therein that there is nothing on record to discern that the petitioners have ever set up claims for Individual Forest Rights, Community Forest Rights and/or Community Forest Resource Rights for consideration by the competent authorities in terms of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006.

¶169

8.1. In Jagannathprasad Mouza (Chunukoli village) out of 238 numbers of claimants received from the members of the Scheduled Tribes Community for Individual Forest Rights all these claims have been rejected by the District Level Committee, Khordha constituted under the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 since the land in question are occupied by them after 13.12.2005. The recognition and vesting of the Forest Rights under the said Act to the forest dwellers belonging to Scheduled Tribes (STs) community and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) would be subject to the condition that such STs or OTFDs must occupy the forest land before 13.12.2005 in view of explicit provision stipulated in Section 4(3) of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006. It is asserted that no

¶170

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶171

Page 22 of 88

¶172

claim for Community Forest Rights or Community Forest Resource Rights has been received in terms of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 with respect to Chunukoli Village under Jaganathprasad Mouza.

¶173

8.2. In the said counter affidavit, it has also been affirmed that the diversion of the forest land is solely for use of construction of proposed road as per realignment under the duly revised CDP and the same is in consonance with requirement under Section 4(3) of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006.

¶174

9. Interveners-opposite parties have filed affidavit dated 08.12.2024 represented through Sri Patitapaban Panda, learned Advocate who submitted that the deviation/ realignment of road in the original CDP is necessitated for safety point of view in conformity with the Indian Road Congress norms. It is submitted that taking aid of the Forest Dwellers Act, the petitioners seek to secure their own encroachments over the land in question and, therefore, the construction of road over the encroached land being forcibly occupied is required to be removed.

¶175

9.1. He brought to the notice of this Court that these opposite parties have approached the learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar by way of filing Civil Suit No.1884 of 2011 which came to be concluded vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2018.

¶176

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶177

Page 23 of 88

¶178

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶179

Some of the petitioners herein (judgment debtors) have been directed to evict the encroached land since 2018. He further submitted that Execution Case No.48 of 2018 in the Court of the learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar is sub judice for deployment of police force to execute the decree. This apart, prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also clamped against them since these petitioners have been creating disturbance and nuisance in the locality. He submitted that the petitioners are required to be permanently restrained to possess the suit scheduled property and are liable to be evicted as no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and decree.

¶180

9.2. He submitted that in the Civil Suit No.1884 of 2011 Sukul Hansda (petitioner No.2 in the writ application) was arrayed as Defendant No.12. Ram Chandra Purti, Udaynath Soren and Thakur Murmu, who were the signatories of the alleged representation(s) annexed under Annexure-4 series to the writ petition and their signatures do find place at Page Nos.29 & 33 respectively, were also arrayed as Defendant Nos.15, 34 and 2 respectively. Therefore, this frivolous litigation has been pursued notwithstanding that they are fully aware about the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Such glaring factual position being intentionally suppressed

¶181

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶182

Page 24 of 88

¶183

this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

¶184

9.3. It is also urged that they have also filed their written statement in the C.S. No.1884 of 2011 admitting that they are the trespassers and residing over Plot No.1350, 1352, 1353, 1347, 1355, 1360 and 1522 out of which plot No.1350, 1353 and 1355 under Khata No.156 are recorded as private plots and the rest of the plots belong to the State Government.

¶185

9.4. It is arduously contended to dismiss the writ petition as the same is pursued with ill-motive to avoid execution proceeding to be continued by the decree holders.

¶186

Discussions:

¶187

10. As a prelude, this Court feels it apposite to quote the following observations made in S. Rajaseekaran Vrs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCR 444 :

¶188

“19. The facts mentioned above would leave no room for doubt that Indian roads have proved to be giant killers demanding immediate attention and remedial action. Such attention and necessary intervention, in the first instance, is required to be made by the concerned Governmental agencies. While there is no reason for any skepticism over the abundant concern shown by all concerned to the issues highlighted and also the attempted solutions both in the field of law enforcement as well as amendments

¶189

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶190

Page 25 of 88

¶191

in the law, besides limited experiments in providing better after trauma care, for reasons that need not detain the court, the results so far have not been very encouraging. The accident and casualty graphs continue to run on an even keel over the last several years.

¶192

20. An accident is an incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. It is occasioned either by human failure or human negligence. Viewed from the above perspective and also thorough hindsight every road accident is an avoidable happening. The history of humankind has been one of conquests over the inevitable. The resignation to fate has never been the accepted philosophy of human life. Challenges have to be met to make human life more meaningful. This is how the constitutional philosophy behind Article 21 has been evolved by the Indian courts over a long period of time. It is this process of development and the absence of significant and meaningful results from the Governmental action till date that impels us to delve into the realms of the issues highlighted by Dr. Rajaseekaran in the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

¶193

10.1. In Government of Kerala Vrs. Joseph, (2023) 11 SCR 264 it is observed that:

¶194

“21.7.When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection as it may lead to destruction of a

¶195

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶196

Page 26 of 88

¶197

right/title of the State to immovable property. In State of Rajasthan Vrs. Harphool Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 652 (two-Judge Bench) it was held:

¶198

„12. So far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession and that too in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for the reason that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third-party encroacher title where he had none.‟

¶199

Further, in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah, (2010) 2 SCC 461 (two-Judge Bench) it was stated:

¶200

„… It is our considered view that where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give an upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers.‟

¶201

21.8. A plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars, such as, when the possession became adverse. The court is not to travel beyond pleading to give any relief, in other words, the plea must stand on its own two feet.”

¶202

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶203

Page 27 of 88

¶204

10.2. In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 3 SCR 1066 it has been stated thus:

¶205

“High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an· illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. As will be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand we have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct and maintain parking lots.”

¶206

10.3. There can be no gainsaying that encroachers are trespassers and, as such they have no right to obstruct the duties of the Government in maintaining the roadway for free flow of traffic. By causing obstruction to lay roads with the guidance of technical experts and

¶207

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶208

Page 28 of 88

¶209

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶210

based on norms specified by the Indian Road Congress, the encroachers who besides encroaching the Government lands sought to be used for construction of road, create hindrance to flow of traffic. Time has now come to discourage such encroachers though structures are raised over the Government lands and not to allow continuance of unlawful possession and activities by the unscrupulous persons encroaching upon such lands without any legitimate right. Therefore, all such cases of illegal encroachments and unauthorised constructions have to be dealt with sternly and swiftly. They cannot be allowed to continue to perpetrate with impunity.

¶211

10.4. It is highlighted by this Court in Akash Singh Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.26630 of 2025 (PIL), vide Order dated 30.10.2025 qua encroachers of Government land:

¶212

“2. As it appears from letters addressed to the Tahasildar, Niali and the Collector, Cuttack vide Annexure-2 series, the villagers have placed their grievance, which has not yet been redressed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department issued a Letter No.RDM-LRGEB-POLICY0001-2024-21855/R&DM, dated 6th July, 2024, addressed to all the Collectors indicating “optimum management of land resources and removal of encroachment”. The text of said letter runs as follows:

¶213

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶214

Page 29 of 88

¶215

„With reference to the subject cited above, I am to say that concerns have been raised by Government on large scale encroachments at a high level meeting. It is pertinent to mention that one of our primary works is optimum management of land resources and allocation of adequate land to developmental purpose & different sectors of economy. However, due to encroachment of Government land in both urban & rural areas, at times, smooth allocation of land for developmental purpose is impaired. Moreover, the opportunity cost of encroached Government land is unrealized in such cases. Also, the concomitant litigation arising out of illegal encroachment remains a challenge to all of us.

¶216

Hence, you are requested to make a realistic survey of rural and urban encroachments and remove encroachments as per extant rules. Consequent upon removal of such encroachments, you are further requested to protect such Government land by suitable hence and conspicuously displayed board by utilizing the funds received in your district for the same purpose. In case of inadequacy of fund for the same purpose, the same may be communicated to this Department immediately.

¶217

An action taken report on the above shall be sent to this Department on each fortnight in the enclosed pro forma. This may be treated as “most urgent”.‟

¶218

3. Without delving into locus standi issue, we find that the primary grievance raised in the instant writ petition is alleged inaction on the part of the Government authorities in not taking any

¶219

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶220

Page 30 of 88

¶221

appropriate steps for removal of the encroachers over the Government land/the other part of the land meant for the use of the common inhabitants of the said village.

¶222

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties furnished a copy of Letter No.RDM-LRGEB-POLICY-0001-2024-31716/R&DM., dated 22nd August, 2025 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which is addressed to all the Collectors for taking steps to evict encroachers from and prevent encroachment on the Government land in the State of Odisha. A detailed action plan with timeline for eviction of encroachers from Government land has been specified in the said letter.

¶223

4.1. For clarity, the action plan is reproduced hereunder: “Action Plan on Eviction of Encroachment and Its Prevention:

¶224

1. Disposal of pending encroachment cases:

¶225

i. The Tahasildar shall examine all the year old pending encroachment cases by 31.08.2025 and complete all formalities under OPLE Act, 1972 and OPLE Rule, 1985.

¶226

ii. The Tahasildar shall chalk out weekly eviction programme in consultation with Sub-Collector.

¶227

iii. In the event of multiple encroachments at a single location which requires an eviction dr4ive, the Tahasildar shall place the matter

¶228

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶229

Page 31 of 88

¶230

before the Sub-Collector to give appropriate direction for coordinating among different Departments/Agencies like Police organization (for security and law and order situation), Public Works Department (for demolition), Electricity Organization (for fire protection & emergency service) etc.

¶231

iv. The eviction shall be executed under the supervision of Tahasildar/Additional Tahasildar and with police protection. A detailed proceeding of eviction including photography and videography shall be prepared documenting the entire eviction process and the removal of any structures or belongings.

¶232

v. The Tahasildar shall ensure that the land after eviction is protected to prevent reencroachment. Proper boundaries/fencing should be made soon after eviction to prevent further encroachment.

¶233

vi. All pending encroachment cases shall be disposed of after removing encroachment by 31.03.2026.

¶234

Disposal of Appeal Cases:

¶235

The appellate authority shall strive to dispose of the case in a time bound manner. All appeal cases pending before appellate authority shall be disposed of by 30.11.2025.

¶236

2. Detection and removal of new encroachment cases:

¶237

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶238

Page 32 of 88

¶239

A. Detection of Encroachment:

¶240

As per Rule 3(1) of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Rules, 1985, the Revenue Inspector shall report the cases of unauthorized occupation of government land to the Tahasildar in Form-„G‟. Within fifteen days of the case of each financial year the Revenue Inspector shall send a certificate to the Tahasildar that except the encroachment already reported there is no further encroachment in his area.

¶241

i. Revenue Inspectors and his staff conduct routine inspections of government lands and report about any such encroachment to the Tahasildar in Form-„G‟ of the said Rules by 10th of each month. Revenue Inspector shall submit in advance the monthly programme to Tahasildar on demarcation and inspection of government land.

¶242

ii. The demarcation of government land, Inspection and identification of encroachments on Government land submission of report to Tahasildar by Revenue Inspection shall be completed by 31.03.2026.

¶243

iii. The Revenue Inspectors concerned shall submit the certificate to the Tahasildar that except in the encroachment already reported there is no further encroachment in his area by 15.04.2026.

¶244

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶245

Page 33 of 88

¶246

B. Initiation of new encroachment cases:

¶247

i. On receipt of report on authorized occupation of government land from Revenue Inspector in Form-„G‟, Tahasildar shall forthwith enter the details in prescribed register and initiate proceeding under the OPLE Act, 1972 and Rules made thereunder.

¶248

ii. The initiation of all encroachment cases shall be completed by 30.04.2026.

¶249

C. Completion of all formalities:

¶250

The process of show cause notice, the hearing of the person reported to be in unauthorized occupation of the government land and passing of eviction order shall be completed by 30.08.2026 on time bound manner in camp courts. A detailed date wise programme shall be communicated to be Sub-Collector in this regard. All encroachment cases shall be disposed of after removing encroachment by 31.03.2027.

¶251

3. Protection of valuable Government land:

¶252

Special attention should be given to protect valuable Government land.

¶253

i. The Tahasildars shall identify and prioritize valuable Government lands based on their strategic importance, economic potential or vulnerability to encroachment.

¶254

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶255

Page 34 of 88

¶256

ii. The Tahasildars shall coordinate with executing agencies of the Government to construct robust fencing or boundary walls around valuable Government lands by utilizing the funds available under the scheme “Protection of Government Land”.

¶257

iii. The Tahsildar shall utilize the unutilised fund lying with them under the scheme “Protection of Government land” by 31.12.2025.

¶258

4. Role of Supervisory Officers:

¶259

Supervisory officers at the Sub-Divisional and District level are critical for oversight and accountability:

¶260

I. Regular Review of Encroachment Cases:

¶261

The Sub-Collector at the Sub-Divisional level shall conduct regular reviews of the progress of disposal of encroachment cases and removal of encroachment from Government land. The will be monitored Collector progress by fortnightly and be reviewed in District Revenue Meetings. The review shall include the progress on institutions of encroachment cases, eviction drives and preventive measures taken, area made free from encroachment, protection of government land by utilizing funds placed under the scheme “Protection of Government land”.

¶262

II. Monitoring of Eviction Drives:

¶263

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶264

Page 35 of 88

¶265

They shall oversee the planning and execution of eviction drives.

¶266

III. Coordination Meetings:

¶267

They shall conduct regular coordination meetings with Tahasildars, Revenue Inspectors, and other concerned Departments to discuss encroachment issues and strategize actions.

¶268

IV. Reporting to Higher Authorities:

¶269

They shall regularly report the status of encroachment cases and prevention measures to the Revenue & DM Department on monthly basis.

¶270

SYNOPSIS OF TIMELINE

¶271

A. Disposal of pending encroachment cases and removal of encroachments:

¶272

		Timeline
i.	To examine/verify all pending encroachment cases by Tahasildars	31.08.2025
ii.	To complete all formalities as per OPLE Act, 1972 and OPLE Rule, 1985	15.09.2025
iii.	Formulation of Monthly Eviction Programme	30.09.2025
iv.	Disposal of encroachment cases and removal of encroachment from Government land	31.03.2026

¶273

B. Detection and removal of new encroachment cases:

¶274

Timeline

¶275

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶276

Page 36 of 88

¶277

i.	To chalk out monthly inspection programme by Revenue Inspector	31.08.2025
ii.	Inspection and detection of encroachment and submission of report in Form-G to Tahasildar	01.09.2025 to 31.03.2026
iii.	Submission of certificate by R.I. to the Tahasildar that except the encroachment already reported there is no further encroachment in his area	15.04.2026
iv.	Institution of all encroachment cases	30.04.2026
v.	To complete all formalities as per Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Rules, 1985	31.08.2026
vi.	Formulation of Monthly Eviction Programme	30.09.2026
vii.	Disposal and removal of encroachmentfrom Government land	31.03.2027

¶278

C. Protection of Government land:

¶279

		Timeline
i.	Demarcation and identification	01.09.2025	to
	of valuable Government land and vulnerable to encroachment	31.12.2025
ii.	Utilisation of unutilized fund pending at Tahasil level	31.12.2025

¶280

5. Since our attention is drawn to aforesaid decision of Government demonstrating “no tolerance” to any encroachment over the Government land and the timeline has been specified activating the process of law to

¶281

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶282

Page 37 of 88

¶283

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶284

remove encroachments and evict encroachers from the Government land by following the procedure laid down in the relevant statute, this Court does not feel it prudent to keep the matter pending. The grievance of the petitioners having been redressed in view of the aforesaid decision taken by the Government and the law is put in motion, we, therefore, direct the authorities to complete the process as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law keeping in view the action plan and timeline enclosed thereto as referred to above.”

¶285

11. This Court appreciates the step sought to be taken by the opposite parties against the squatters. Since the construction of road is to be undertaken on the Government land as per realignment/revised alignment as reflected in Letter No.46267, dated 3.11.2023 (Annexure-2), which would cater to the exigency of the public in view of growing population in and around Bhubaneswar City, the appropriate authority is deemed to have taken into consideration very many factors to suggest for revision/realignment. Such realignment of road is required as per Modified CDP keeping in view safety standards which would not affect the interest of the petitioners or the general public in any manner whatsoever inasmuch as the land over which the proposed road is to be constructed belongs to the Government of Odisha.

¶286

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶287

Page 38 of 88

¶288

11.1. This Court is reminded of the following observation made in State of Odisha Vrs. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 :

¶289

“5. In view of the diverse contentions, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants are bound to acquire the land in question. In the Collector of Bombay Vrs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, (1955) 1 SCR 1311, 1323 = AIR 1955 SC 298 this Court while approving the ratio of Madras High Court in Dy. Collector, Calicut Division Vrs. Aiyeru Pillay, (1911) 9 IC 341 = (1911) 2 MWN 367 that the Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to the Government in the land on acquisition, but only it acquires such interest in the land as does not already belong to the Government held that:

¶290

„When Government possesses an interest in land which is the subject of acquisition under the Act, that interest is itself outside such acquisition, because there can be no question of Government acquiring what is its own. An investigation into the nature and value of that interest will no doubt be necessary for determining the compensation payable for the interest outstanding in the claimants, but that would not make it the subject of acquisition.‟

¶291

This principle was followed in catena of decisions, viz. Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer Vrs. M.S. Seshagiri Rao, (1968) 2 SCR 892 : AIR 1968 SC 1045; Ram Narain Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 532 = AIR 1972 SC 2225; Union of India Vrs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4

¶292

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶293

Page 39 of 88

¶294

= (1979) 2 SCR 229 etc. Therefore, it is settled law that the Government, being an owner of the land, need not acquire its own land merely because on an earlier occasion proceedings were mistakenly resorted to acquire the land and later on while realising its mistake obviously withdrew the same and published a fresh notification in which admittedly the land was omitted for acquisition and thereafter proceeded to lay the road on its land. However, the High Court found that the respondent as a tenant under the Act and Government unauthorisedly took possession from him and directed the Government to pay compensation.”

¶295

11.2. As per the CDP, road is realigned and the deviation would be not on any private land, but on the Government land. This Court takes cognizance of the following object/plan as reflected in the counter affidavit:

¶296

“That it is humbly submitted that construction of 200 ft road from Institute of Mathematics to Ekamra Kanan via Infocity from RD 5/700 to 7/640 Km 200 feet master plan road (left parallel road) is being taken up in larger public interest to ease traffic congestion in the existing roads. The geographical area of Bhubaneswar city is expanding in leaps and bounds with the coming tip of more residential, commercial complexes, health and education hubs etc. Expansion of communication facility is the urgent need of the time for smooth navigation of vehicles and safe communication of commuters. In the tentative master plan of BDA, the earmarked road alignment

¶297

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶298

Page 40 of 88

¶299

was encountering a sharp curve that would have been risky for navigation of vehicles and commuters and prone to accidents. Besides that a number of important structures would have to be demolished if the road is constructed as per the tentative earmarked alignment . From Engineering point of view and road safety parameters, it was felt expedient to modify the alignment basing on geometric design parameters, such as minimum radius of curve, i.e., 200 mtr and better design speed, i.e., 50 KMPH in conformity with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) norms. In the modified plan of the alignment of the road there would be demolition of bare minimum important number of structures land would not be affected. Keeping in view these parameters and the road safety angles the road alignment was modified for public convenience to provide better connectivity to the expanding city space.

¶300

It is pertinent to state here that construction of the road in question comes under the administrative jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar (R&B) Division No.III. For the road construction encumbrance free land is to be provided by B.D.A and the District Administration following statutory procedures. As of today, construction of the road has been taken up where encumbrance free land is available. No one has been threatened by the P.W.D for demolition of houses of people coming within the purview of revised road alignment. The road will be constructed only on the encumbrance free land provided by the B.D.A and the District Administration and particularly on the land owned by the Government.”

¶301

11.3. The meaning of the term “ENCUMBRANCE” was being considered in Saraswati Devi Vrs. Delhi Development

¶302

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶303

Page 41 of 88

¶304

Authority, (2013) 4 SCR 922, wherein it has been observed thus:

¶305

“35. Concise Oxford English Dictionary [Tenth Edition, Revised] defines „encumbrance‟—

¶306

1. a burden or impediment.

¶307

2. Law a mortgage or other charge on property or assets.

¶308

36. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary [International D Edition; Volume I] defines „encumbrance‟ as follows:

¶309

„1. That which encumbers.

¶310

2. Law Any lien or liability attached to real property.

¶311

3. One‟s wife, child or dependent. Also spelled incumbrance.

¶312

See synonyms under impediment, load [<of encumbrance <encombrer. see encumber.]

¶313

37. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar‟s The Law Lexicon [Second Edition Reprint 2000] with reference to a decision of the Patna High Court in Mahadeo Prasad Sahu Vrs. Gajadhar Prasad Sahu, AIR 1924 Patna 362, the term „encumbrance‟ is explained as follows:

¶314

„Encumbrance. Burden or property; impediment; mortgage or other claim on property. Grant of lands rent free or the grant of the landlords zarait land to a tenant for the purposes of cultivation does amount to an encumbrance of the estate. Apart from mere dealings such as mortgages which create a charge

¶315

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶316

Page 42 of 88

¶317

upon the land, there are other dealings which amount to an encumbrance. Anything which interferes with the unrestricted rights of the proprietors as they then existed would be an encumbrance upon the land, even the granting of a lease of zarait lands, that is to say the lands which the landlord is entitled to hold in direct possession and to cultivate for his own purposes. A lease of such lands granted to an occupier in circumstances which would give him a right of occupancy over the land, would amount to an encumbrance.‟

¶318

38. In Collector of Bombay Vrs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri and Others, AIR 1955 SC 298, the term „encumbrance‟ as occurring in Section 16 of the LA Act has been explained by this Court to mean interests in respect of which a compensation was made under Section 11 or could have been claimed thereunder.

¶319

39. In M. Ratanchand Chordia & Ors. Vrs. Kasim Khaleeli, AIR 1964 Madras 209, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word „encumbrances‟ with reference to the 1954 Act and the LA Act in the context of the easementary right of way. The Division Bench considered the word „encumbrances‟ thus:

¶320

„18. The word „Encumbrances‟ in regard to a person or an estate denotes a burden which ordinarily consists of debts, obligations and responsibilities. In the sphere of law it connotes a liability attached to the property arising out of a claim or lien subsisting in favour of a

¶321

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶322

Page 43 of 88

¶323

person who is not the owner of the property. Thus a mortgage, a charge and vendor‟s lien are all instances of encumbrances. The essence of an encumbrance is that it must bear upon the property directly and indirectly and not remotely or circuitously. It is a right in realiena circumscribing and subtracting from the general proprietary right of another person. An encumbered right, that is a right subject to a limitation, is called servient while the encumbrance itself is designated as dominant. ...‟

¶324

40. The word „encumbrance‟, according to its ordinary significance, means any right existing in another to use the land or whereby the use by the owner is restricted. The word „encumbrance‟ imports within itself every right or interest in the land, which may subsist in a person other than the owner; it is anything which places the burden of a legal liability upon property. The word „encumbrance‟ in law has to be understood in the context of the provision under consideration but ordinarily its ambit and scope is wide. Seen thus, it is difficult to see why a binding contract entered into between an auctionpurchaser and the Government on approval of the highest bid relating to sale of property, which is part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the 1954 Act followed by provisional possession to the auction-purchaser, should not come within the purview of the word „encumbrance‟.”

¶325

11.4. It is affirmatively submitted by the opposite parties that the Works Department would take up the road

¶326

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶327

Page 44 of 88

¶328

construction work on encumbrance-free land handed over by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the District Administration. The modified CDP was notified as modified CDP-02/2017 and published in the Extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette on 14th May 2018. It is asserted by the opposite parties that in the modified CDP the road alignment in question has been modified following due process of law. It is stated that the easy connectivity with smooth vehicular movement and convenience of the public having regard to the road safety parameters the alignment basing on geometric design, such as minimum radius of curve, i.e. 200 metres and better speed, i.e ., 50 KMPH in conformity with the Indian Road Congress norms have been taken into consideration by the technical experts. It is assured by way of counter affidavit that in the modified alignment of the road demolition of structures would be at the minimal/negligible and there will be no encroachment of reserved forest area. Keeping in view these parameters and the road safety angles the road alignment is modified for public convenience to provide better connectivity to the expanding city space.

¶329

11.5. It is fairly well-established that the Court should not venture to act as substitute for the technical experts and decide the matters of technical nature by substituting its view/opinion discarding the expert opinion. It can be

¶330

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶331

Page 45 of 88

¶332

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶333

underscored that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the statute and the overall public interest and the social object is to be borne in mind while dealing with public interest litigation particularly when it involves public safety on roads.

¶334

11.6. Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India envisages that all citizens shall have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. Nevertheless, it would not mean to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India without due acknowledgement under law, i.e., unauthorisedly. The law does never come to the aid of the person who, without authority of law and illegally squats on the property of the Government. A person who unauthorisedly possesses the property cannot be heard to say that he has a constitutional or statutory right to occupy such Government property.

¶335

11.7. It is not out of place to have regard to the Judgment dated 19.05.2018 rendered by the learned 1^st Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in CS No.1884 of 2011, wherein the following order has been passed:

¶336

“The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on contest against defendants. The defendants are permanently restrained from entering upon the suit scheduled properties given in „A‟ to „S‟, they are liable for eviction from the above schedule properties and are directed to hand over

¶337

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶338

Page 46 of 88

¶339

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶340

possession of the plots they are in possession to the respective recorded owners. In case the defendants failed to evict the suit land within three months hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to evict them and recover possession from them by due process of law. No costs.”

¶341

11.8. The intervenors by way of an affidavit dated 08.12.2024, as has already been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, asserted that certain defendants in the above civil suit are the petitioner(s) and signatories to the representation dated 15.02.2024 filed before the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha with copies to many authorities of different departments without even disclosing the order of the learned 1^st Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar as reproduced hereinabove. The present writ petition has been filed only to delay and protract the process of execution proceeding before the competent Court vide Execution Case No.48 of 2018. Order dated 21.11.2022 passed in said execution case is to the following effect:

¶342

“The execution case record is put up today on the strength of advance petition filed by the learned counsel for decree holder No.7. Advocate Sri P.K. Samantaray and his associates files vakalatnama on behalf of decree holder No.7 namely Biswajit Nayak with the consent of previous lawyer. Hence the vakalatnama is accepted. Put up on the date fixed.

¶343

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶344

Page 47 of 88

¶345

Later:

¶346

A Letter No.11762/DIB dated 19.11.2022 is received from DCP, BBSR regarding deployment of police for during execution of writ in this execution case. In this letter it is submitted that the writ has not been executed because the details of lands are silent and there is also not the details of the parties are available. He has also intimated that as per direction of Hon‟ble Court, two platoons of male force and one platoon of female force may be deployed for the purpose. Hence, it is requested that the cost of deployment of police force in present scale of pay including revised GST as per recalculation sheet attached with the letter and return the original demand draft bearing No.524032 dated 12.07.2022 Rs.41,090/-. The same are kept in this record. Decree holder is directed to deposit the cost of deployment of police force in present scheme of pay including revised GST in proper head of account for maintenance of law and order during execution of writ in this execution. Put up on 07.12.2022 for deposit of cost.”

¶347

11.9. It is stated at the Bar that the matter is still pending. At this stage the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the decisions with respect to execution proceeding may fruitfully be referred to.

¶348

11.10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made following observations in the context of resistance to deliver possession to the decree holder in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir Vrs. Shibu Mathew, (2023) 5 SCR 551:

¶349

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶350

Page 48 of 88

¶351

„2. More than a century and a half back, the Privy Council (speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville) in The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards Vrs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh, (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 lamented that the difficulties of litigants in India indeed begin when they have obtained a decree. A reference to the above observation is also found in the decision of the Oudh Judicial Commissioner‟s Court in Kuer Jang Bahadur Vrs. Bank of Upper India Ltd., Lucknow, AIR 1925 Oudh 448. It was ruled there that the Courts had to be careful to ensure that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure were not abused by judgmentdebtors in such a way as to make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.

¶352

3. Notwithstanding the enormous lapse of time, we are left awestruck at the observation of the Privy Council which seems to have proved prophetic. The observation still holds true in present times and this case is no different from cases of decree-holders‟ woes commencing while they are in pursuit of enforcing valid and binding decrees passed by civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree-holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not. In Martin Burn Ltd. Vrs. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court held that a court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.‟

¶353

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶354

Page 49 of 88

¶355

11.11. An objection petition under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial. [ vide, MMTC Limited Vrs. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited, (2025) 11 SCR 327 ]. In the case of Rahul S Shah Vrs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 4 SCR 279, following are the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in connection with delay in the execution proceedings and abuse of process of the execution court:

¶356

“23. This court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga Vrs. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 Moore‟s I.A. 605 which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna Vrs. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and the Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution. The Court opined that the Law Commission or the Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be

¶357

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶358

Page 50 of 88

¶359

continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.

¶360

24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 of CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution, i.e., discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order XXI. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind.

¶361

Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and

¶362

Secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

¶363

Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.

¶364

25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, Executing Court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a re-trial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the Executing Court and the decree holder is deprived of the fruits

¶365

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶366

Page 51 of 88

¶367

of the litigation and the judgment debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.

¶368

26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that invariably in all execution applications, the Courts first issue show cause notice asking the judgment debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under Order XXI Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial. For example, the judgement debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2 and Order XXI Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no option with the Court but to record oral evidence which may be frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely.

¶369

27. This is anti-thesis to the scheme of Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be decided in one and the same trial. Order I and Order II which relate to Parties to Suits and Frame of Suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at one go.

¶370

***

¶371

40. In Ghan Shyam Das Gupta Vrs. Anant Kumar Sinha, AIR 1991 SC 2251, this Court had observed that the provisions of the Code as regards execution are of superior judicial quality than what is generally available under the other statutes and the Judge,

¶372

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶373

Page 52 of 88

¶374

being entrusted exclusively with administration of justice, is expected to do better. With pragmatic approach and judicial interpretations, the Court must not allow the judgment debtor or any person instigated or raising frivolous claim to delay the execution of the decree. For example, in suits relating to money claim, the Court, may on the application of the plaintiff or on its own motion using the inherent powers under Section 151, under the circumstances, direct the defendant to provide security before further progress of the suit. The consequences of non-compliance of any of these directions may be found in Order XVII Rule 3.

¶375

41. Having regard to the above background, wherein there is urgent need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings we deem it appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice. These directions are in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India in larger public interest to subserve the process of justice so as to bring to an end the unnecessary ordeal of litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of decree and in larger perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the process of law.

¶376

42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the belowmentioned directions:

¶377

1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11

¶378

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶379

Page 53 of 88

¶380

Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.

¶381

2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.

¶382

3. After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.

¶383

5. Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.

¶384

6. The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.

¶385

7. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

¶386

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶387

Page 54 of 88

¶388

8. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

¶389

9. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

¶390

10. The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.

¶391

11. The Court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.

¶392

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶393

Page 55 of 88

¶394

12. Under Section 60 of CPC the term “…in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

¶395

13. The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

¶396

14. The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law.

¶397

15. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the Court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the Executing Courts.”

¶398

11.12. Such guidelines/ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to be passed showing anxious

¶399

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶400

Page 56 of 88

¶401

consideration reflected at the first paragraph of Rahul S Shah (supra) , which is reproduced hereunder:

¶402

“The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 16.01.2020 [Rahul S. Shah Vrs. Jinendrakumar Gandhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2748] of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed several writ petitions. The course of the litigation highlights the malaise of constant abuse of procedural provisions which defeats justice, i.e., frivolous attempts by unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree. ”

¶403

11.13. It may be pertinent to take note of the principle as reiterated in Kanwar Singh Saini Vrs. High Court, Delhi, (2011) 15 Addl. SCR 972 = (2012) 4 SCC 307 that it is a settled legal proposition that the executing court does not have the power to go behind the decree. Thus, in absence of any challenge to the decree, no objection is supposed to be entertained in execution. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. Thus for enforcement of a right/ obligation under a statute, the only remedy available to

¶404

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶405

Page 57 of 88

¶406

the person aggrieved is to get adjudication of rights under the said Act.

¶407

11.14. Under the aforesaid premise, the competent authorities are required to show utmost dispatch in action and the procedure established in law should not defeat justice to the citizens. Larger interest of the public is paramount consideration; rather than interest of a few, that too encroachers/squatters and, more particularly judgment-debtors.

¶408

11.15. This Court now takes note of hurdle faced by the Administration in removing the encroachments over the Government land. The enquiry report dated 15.05.2017 was submitted by the A.S.I. of Police, Chandaka Police Station in connection with CMC 460 of 2017 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Observations dated 26.05.2017 of the Additional DCP- cum- EM, Bhubaneswar are relevant in connection with said case. It is transpired that while carrying out operation to remove encroachments and to wade the persons occupying the land unauthorisedly, the encroachers created hindrance. Hence, the administration is to be facilitated by providing adequate police force.

¶409

11.16. In this regard following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in the case of Kaniz

¶410

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶411

Page 58 of 88

¶412

Ahmed Vrs. Sabuddin & Ors., (2025) 4 SCR 2467 can be noticed:

¶413

“5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vrs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 990 = (2024) 12 SCR 1320, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions:

¶414

„(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

¶415

(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

¶416

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶417

Page 59 of 88

¶418

(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential/commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

¶419

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider/ Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

¶420

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation/violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder/owner/occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion/occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

¶421

(vi) No permission/licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized

¶422

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶423

Page 60 of 88

¶424

building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.

¶425

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

¶426

(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

¶427

(ix) In the event of any application/appeal/ revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals/ revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

¶428

(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect

¶429

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶430

Page 61 of 88

¶431

and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal/Courts relating to house/building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law.

¶432

(xi) Banks/financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

¶433

(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.‟

¶434

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to the unauthorised pray for regularisation of construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in

¶435

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶436

Page 62 of 88

¶437

accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees.

¶438

7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society. [See: Ashok Malhotra Vrs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.(C) No.10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)¹ ]”

¶439

11.17. Such observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India having substantial bearing on the issue of providing police force to execute and effectuate the policy of the Government to lay/construct road for safety of the general public, the eviction process or removal of

¶440

1 Vide Order dated 07.08.2024.

¶441

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶442

Page 63 of 88

¶443

encroachment is to be carried out in accordance with law taking into account rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶444

12. Another plea of the petitioners at paragraph 4.3 of the writ petition deserves attention. The petitioners have alleged the action of the opposite parties as unauthorized. It is stated that the scheme for widening of road encroaches upon the Grama Panchayat Area, where generations of traditional forest dwellers have established their homes and have been eking out livelihood. It is said that in obedience to the direction of Chief Engineer, DPI and Roads in his Letter dated 03.11.2023, the contractors engaged by the Road Engineering Department are continuing with the construction work attune with realignment of the road. It is also alleged that by showing muscle power the contractors threaten to forcibly demolish the dwelling houses of the Adivasi people without resorting to due process of law. On the contrary, the report of the ASI Police as extracted hereinabove is otherwise.

¶445

12.1. To address this point agitated by the petitioners, a glance at the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 is necessitated.

¶446

12.2. Provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006, stand thus:

¶447

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶448

Page 64 of 88

¶449

“4. Recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.—

¶450

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government hereby recognises and vests forest rights in

¶451

(a) the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in States or areas in States where they are declared as Scheduled Tribes in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3;

¶452

(b) the other traditional forest dwellers in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3.

¶453

(2) The forest rights recognised under this Act in critical wildlife habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or resettled, provided that no forest rights holders shall be resettled or have their rights in any manner affected for the purposes of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation except in case all the following conditions are satisfied, namely:

¶454

(a) the process of recognition and vesting of rights as specified in section 6 is complete in all the areas under consideration;

¶455

(b) it has been established by the concerned agencies of the State Government, in exercise of their powers under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 that the activities or impact of the presence of holders of rights upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and

¶456

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶457

Page 65 of 88

¶458

threaten the existence of said species and their habitat;

¶459

(c) the State Government has concluded that other reasonable options, such as, co-existence are not available;

¶460

(d) a resettlement or alternatives package has been prepared and communicated that provides a secure livelihood for the affected individuals and communities and fulfils the requirements of such affected individuals and communities given in the relevant laws and the policy of the Central Government;

¶461

(e) the free informed consent of the Gram Sabhas in the areas concerned to the proposed resettlement and to the package has been obtained in writing;

¶462

(f) no resettlement shall take place until facilities and land allocation at the resettlement location are complete as per the promised package;

¶463

Provided that the critical wildlife habitats from which rights holders are thus relocated for purposes of wildlife conservation shall not be subsequently diverted by the State Government or the Central Government or any other entity for other uses.

¶464

(3) The recognition and vesting of forest rights under this Act to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to other traditional forest dwellers in relation to any State or Union territory in respect of forest land and their habitat shall be subject to the condition that

¶465

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶466

Page 66 of 88

¶467

such Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005.

¶468

(4) A right conferred by sub-section (1) shall be heritable but not alienable or transferable and shall be registered jointly in the name of both the spouses in case of married persons and in the name of the single head in the case of a household headed by a single person and in the absence of a direct heir, the heritable right shall pass on to the next-of-kin.

¶469

(5) Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

¶470

(6) Where the forest rights recognised and vested by sub section (1) are in respect of land mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 such land shall be under the occupation of an individual or family or community on the date of commencement of this Act and shall be restricted to the area under actual occupation and shall in no case exceed an area of four hectares.

¶471

(7) The forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, including clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requirement of paying the „net present value‟ and „compensatory afforestation‟ for diversion of forest land, except those specified in this Act.

¶472

(8) The forest rights recognised and vested under this Act shall include the right of land to forest dwelling

¶473

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶474

Page 67 of 88

¶475

Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who can establish that they were displaced from their dwelling and cultivation without land compensation due to State development interventions, and where the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired within five years of the said acquisition.

¶476

5. Duties of holders of forest rights.—

¶477

The holders of any forest right, Gram Sabha and village level institutions in areas where there are holders of any forest right under this Act are empowered to—

¶478

(a) protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity;

¶479

(b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas are adequately protected;

¶480

(c) ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage;

¶481

(d) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity are complied with.”

¶482

12.3. Aforesaid provisions would show that not only rights are conferred but duties are also accompanied with such rights. The pleading of the writ petition does not reveal

¶483

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶484

Page 68 of 88

¶485

such duties have been performed by the claimants. Section 4(3) also makes it abundantly clearly that the forest dwelling of the communities mentioned therein in respect of forest land and their habitat are to be recognised and vested, subject to the condition that such Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers must have occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005. The fact affirmed by the Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste Development, Minority and Back Classes Welfare Department of Government of Odisha in counter affidavit dated 19.12.2024 reveals that the claims of 238 numbers of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes community stood rejected for “the land has been occupied by them after 13^th December, 2005. The recognition and vesting of forest rights under the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers is subject to condition” that such persons must lead evidence that they have come to occupy the forest land before 13.12.2005 as envisaged under Section 4(3) of the said Act. It is also asserted that no claim for community forest rights or community forest resource rights have been received in respect of Chunukuli Village under Jagannath Prasad Mouza. Thus, the petitioners have not made out any case by way of the writ petition that they

¶486

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶487

Page 69 of 88

¶488

have occupied the land prior to 13.01.2005. Rather it emanates from the pleadings and not disputed by the petitioners that no claim is pending before the competent authority under the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 and the Civil Suit has been decreed against them. The position with respect to judgment and decree of the Civil Court and the execution proceeding remained uncontroverted by the petitioners.

¶489

12.4. The Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 cannot be used as a tool to hinder activity of development and construction of road for the safety of the common citizens. Said Act does not pose restriction to development in a prohibitive sense; rather, it mandates a specific, legally binding process that must be followed before forest land can be diverted for any project, including road construction. This process involves the recognition of forest rights and, crucially, the free, prior, and informed consent of the Grama Sabha. Failure to adhere to these provisions can and often does lead to legal challenges, project delays, and even abandonment, effectively hindering the progress until compliance is achieved.

¶490

12.5. It transpires from the fact affirmed by the Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste Development, Minority and Back Classes Welfare Department of Government of Odisha in counter affidavit

¶491

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶492

Page 70 of 88

¶493

dated 19.12.2024 that in the list of rejected individual forest rights claims by the District Level Committee, Khordha, two of the petitioners of the instant writ petition namely petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Sukul Hansdah and Narayan Hansdah) are included in the list whose claims of occupation of land as members of Scheduled Tribes community stood rejected and the reason thereto was also communicated to them. In this connection it may not be irrelevant to take note of factors which created stumbling block in proceeding with the developmental work like laying road by realigning. The Enquiry Report dated 15.05.2017 vide Reference CMC 460/2017 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 submitted by the ASI of Police, Chandaka Police Station reveals that:

¶494

“During my inquiry I ascertained that the land is situated in Mouza: Jagannath Prasad, Khata No.156, Plot No.1355 kisam Sarada-3, area Ac.0.375 dec. and was originally stand recorded in the name of one 1. Nabakishore Baghasingh, son of Raghunath Baghasingh, 2. Nabakishore Rautray, Son of Biswambar Rautray, 3. Padmanava Pradhan, son of Siba Pradhan, 4. Bidhar Singh, son of Iswar Singh, 5. Dhada Prarida, son of Adhikari Parida, 6. Fakira Parida, son of Rahasa Parida all are residents of Village: Andharua and due to legal necessity the co-sharer Arikishta Pradhan, the legal heir of Padmanava Pradhan and Dhada Parida, son of Adhikari Parida, and Suma Bewa wife of Lokanath Parida has sold there share to Bijaya Ketan Gadabada.

¶495

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶496

Page 71 of 88

¶497

Thereafter there was a partition between among the recorded tenant Nabakishore son Baghasingh, of Raghunath Bagha Singh, Prahalad Singh, Lalata Singh, Malayabanta Singh, Alekha Singh all are son of Late Bidhar Singh and Bijaya Ketan Gadabada in which Bijaya Ketan Gadabada has got his share. While the situation stood thus, due to legal necessity Bijayketan Gadabada had sold an area A0.115 dec. including road (A0.015 dec.) to one Bijaya Kumar Panda. The said Bijaya Kumar Panda, son of Dibyasingh Panda to fulfill his legal necessity had sold his purchased area A0.115 dec to Mamata Panda the 1st Party vide RSD No.573 dated 17.01.2009 and the date of purchased the 1st party is the absolute owner and is in possession over the same.

¶498

In the meanwhile the 1st Party has applied for correction of record in her favour before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide Mutation Case No.2971/2015 and obtain the mutation ROR in her favour and paying rent to the Government. It is further submitted that the first party has produced necessary documents in support of her claim and substantiates the facts as narrated above.

¶499

Notice served to the second parties and asked to produced the document regarding their ownership but they failec to produce local any document. The 2nd party members are the local inhabitants and are rowdy in nature having muscle power and are always in drunken condition and they are in habits of creating nuisance and trying to set up fictitious claim and indulging in all unlawful activities with an ulterior motive to grab the property of 1^st party members. However there is every apprehension of breach of peace, law and order problem, which may loss to life and property of the 1^st party. Both

¶500

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶501

Page 72 of 88

¶502

the parties warned against breach of peace and strict vigil is being maintained.

¶503

The 2^nd party are directed not to raise any obstruction to the 1^st party‟s property for her enjoyment till disposal of the case both the parties are directed to maintain peace in the locality.”

¶504

12.6. The Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste Development, Minority and Backward Classes Welfare Department of Government of Odisha has made candid statement in counter affidavit dated 19.12.2024 that the special Grama Sabha was convened in Andharua Grama Panchayat Office and a Resolution dated 08.12.2023 was passed favouring construction of road in order to facilitate communication and free-flow of traffic to avoid accidents. In such view of the matter, the objection in this regard by the petitioners is found to be without any substance. It emanates from the facts so narrated above that the claim of the petitioners that they have been residing for long years which extended their right in terms of the Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 appears to be a myth.

¶505

13. With respect to deviation of original CDP of the BDA, it can be stated that the area declared is only tentative for the proposed laying of road. Nevertheless, while undertaking the actual work, there arose requirement of deviation by utilising the Government land looking at the

¶506

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶507

Page 73 of 88

¶508

situational advantage of the land, growing population with frequency of vehicular movement, accident risk and possible future need for expansion and very many factors. For stalling the developmental activity the process of writ Court cannot be used/abused.

¶509

13.1. In view of the above discussions and this Court appreciating the step taken by the agencies/ functionaries of the Government towards common good and in the larger public interest in order to lay road with adequate width facilitating free-flow of traffic, this Court desists from granting any relief to the present writ petitioners. At this juncture, it may be apposite to notice the guidelines envisioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of In re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash, (2024) 11 SCR 2348 :

¶510

“29. The petitioner has alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question. We need not engage with this aspect, save and except to the extent that it supplies the background to the grievance of the petitioner. In any case, such highhanded and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be countenanced. Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the State,

¶511

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶512

Page 74 of 88

¶513

demolition of citizens‟ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens‟ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments. There are municipal laws and town planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. Where such legislation exists the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. We propose to lay down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The State must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures. Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law.

¶514

30. Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the State or its instrumentalities must:

¶515

(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;

¶516

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶517

Page 75 of 88

¶518

(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;

¶519

(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;

¶520

(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;

¶521

(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court; and

¶522

(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise.”

¶523

13.2. While observing that developmental works catering to the needs of the people cannot be put to grinding halt using subterfuge by encroachers, some of whom were also parties before the civil Court against whom suit is decreed and the execution case is stated to be pending, it is, also necessary to follow the guidelines envisioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as culled out

¶524

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶525

Page 76 of 88

¶526

above. Ensuring safeguards the functionaries/opposite parties may proceed to complete the project in question.

¶527

14. Before parting, this Court would wish to make this observation that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is replete with suppression of material facts. The interveners by way of application bearing I.A. No.9945 of 2024 have brought forth that much attempts were made to evict the encroachers from the occupation of Government land by way of instituting Execution Proceeding before the Civil Court, yet the petitioners could be successful in their evil design by filing the writ petition by adopting dubious device. To examine the veracity of such contention of the interveners while going through the record it came to be noticed that vide Order dated 19.03.2025 while noting the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that in order to avoid acquisition process, the Chief Engineer communicated by a Letter dated 03.11.2023 addressed to the Chief Construction Engineer instructing to proceed with the execution of the work as per revised alignment plan, afforded opportunity to the petitioners to file rejoinder against the counter affidavits. However no rejoinder affidavit is found to have been filed by the petitioners.

¶528

14.1. The contents of writ petition do not disclose that the claim of certain petitioners under the Forest Dwellers

¶529

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶530

Page 77 of 88

¶531

Act, 2006 stood rejected. Furthermore, the writ petition is silent about decree being passed against certain petitioners by the learned Civil Court. It is manifest from the pleadings that only to thwart the execution proceeding certain petitioners-judgment debtors joined hands with other petitioners while filing the instant writ petition. The fact of institution of execution case in connection with decree passed against those judgmentdebtors, who are petitioners in the instant writ petition, vide Judgment dated 19.05.2018 of the 1^st Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in CS No.1884 of 2011 has been suppressed. Such vital factual aspects have been suppressed. It is not a case of a mere third persons moving the Court simpliciter on behalf of Adivasi or aboriginal people; but knowing fully well their applications had been rejected for want of material being placed before the competent authority in terms of requirement under the Forest Dwellers Act. This apart certain petitioners are required to be evicted by virtue of decree passed against them. Thus, it is a case of definite abuse of process of court, justice and is a motivated attempt based on falsehood to misguide the Court.

¶532

14.2. Noteworthy here to mention that in State of Odisha Vrs. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 10 SCR 1049 in the context of non-disclosure of civil suit being withdrawn for claiming identical relief in the writ petition, the

¶533

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and

¶534

Page 78 of 88

¶535

W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶536

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India proceeded as follows:

¶537

“39. The writ petition also ought to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts regarding filing and withdrawal of the civil suit claiming the same relief. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal against the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents disclosed the filing of civil suit and withdrawal thereof. It only transpired only that at the time of the hearing of the appeal.

¶538

40. As to how a litigant who conceals material facts from the Court has to be dealt with, has been gone into by this Court, time and again in plethora of cases and the consistent opinion is that, he is not entitled even to be heard on merits.”

¶539

14.3. In K.D. Sharma Vrs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 10 SCR 454, it was observed:

¶540

“36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating „We will not listen to your application because of what you have done‟. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.

¶541

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶542

Page 79 of 88

¶543

38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play „hide and seek‟ or to „pick and choose‟ the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, „the Court knows law but not facts‟.

¶544

39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 = 86 LJKB 257 = 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the

¶545

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶546

Page 80 of 88

¶547

examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.”

¶548

14.4. The judicial precedents have consistently held that suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies them from obtaining any relief. One who seeks equity must do equity. Approaching the Court with unclean hands and multiple proceedings amounts to abuse of process. It is relevant to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Ramjas Foundation Vrs. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 , wherein it is held that if a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar, (2004) SCR 56 held as follows:

¶549

“13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was

¶550

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶551

Page 81 of 88

¶552

material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken.”

¶553

14.5. In Pandurang Vithal Kevne Vrs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (2024) 12 SCR 2113 the following view is expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for misrepresenting the facts before the Court in pursuing frivolous litigation:

¶554

“18. The petitioner‟s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court‟s valuable time and resources. It is in interest of justice that genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently, without being hindered by such unscrupulous litigation. We may refer here an observation given by this Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vrs Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470:

¶555

„150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.‟

¶556

19. This Court in Dalip Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice. It was observed as under:

¶557

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶558

Page 82 of 88

¶559

„1. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.‟

¶560

20. Time and again, this Court has raised deterrence against frivolous appeals and petitions by imposition of costs on the litigating parties. This court in the case of K.C. Tharakan Vrs State Bank of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on 01.05.2023 held the following:

¶561

„No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of judicial time. We, thus, dismiss this petition with costs, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library.‟ ***”

¶562

14.6. There is no iota of doubt for the proposition that long duration of illegal occupation confers no legal right; mere passage of time in possessing the Government land and

¶563

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶564

Page 83 of 88

¶565

construction of residence do not vest any right or create any adverse title against the true owner. In the case of Jagpal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, (2011) 2 SCR 250 it has emphatically been held that encroachers or trespassers cannot claim legal right to continue with the possession of the public property, and no equity arises in their favour for they have erected structures or stayed for many years. The Court held as follows:

¶566

“14. *** In Friends Colony Development Committee Vrs. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733 this Court held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception. In our opinion this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village common land. Ordinarily, compounding In such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.

¶567

***

¶568

22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram

¶569

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶570

Page 84 of 88

¶571

Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.”

¶572

14.7. Under the above premises, having suppressed the material fact, the petitioners are not entitled to be heard and/or granted relief prayed for in the writ petition.

¶573

Conclusion:

¶574

15. Upon perusal of record this Court is satisfied to observe that the petitioners have concealed material facts to seek favour from this Court. The documents produced by the intervener petitioners regarding such concealment evince the conduct of the petitioners. The land in question over which the writ petitioners have been

¶575

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶576

Page 85 of 88

¶577

claiming Forest Rights was the subject matter in C.S. No. 1884 of 2011 and the Civil Court judgment and decree has been passed against certain writ petitioners for eviction since 2018 and inquiry reports against them have been submitted in connection with petition under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It emanates from such Reports that they are creating disturbances and nuisance in the locality and obstructed in the process of recovery of Government lands and prevented true owners to enter into their plots. No objection or affidavit in opposition has been filed by the petitioners to such factual position narrated in the intervention petition by the interveners. It is noteworthy that the learned Civil Court vide Judgment dated 19.05.2018 in C.S. No. 1884 of 2011 for permanent injunction, eviction and recovery of possession, decreed on contest against the defendants therein directing for handing over the possession of the plots to the true owners within three months. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clear heart and mind, clean hands and clean objective and have suppressed the material facts. As it is found that the petitioners are seeking to protect the rankencroachers, the illegal possession cannot be permitted to be continued, that too, under the order of the Court, as it is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that

¶578

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶579

Page 86 of 88

¶580

such wrongdoers are discouraged at every stage and not permitted to prolong the litigation.

¶581

16. Therefore, given the aforesaid consistent view expressed by the Supreme Court of India, and appreciating the policy decision of the Government of Odisha showing concern over removal of the encroachments and eviction of the encroachers from the Government land and all other factors discussed hereinabove, the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed and this Court does so. Since said writ petition is dismissed and this Court feels no necessity in passing separate order in W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025, as the purpose for filing the writ petition has been addressed to in the foregoing paragraphs.

¶582

17. The opposite parties/authorities are now required to adhere to not only the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs but also the policy of the Government of Odisha as reflected in decision of this Court in the case of Akash Singh Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.26630 of 2025 (PIL), vide Order dated 30.10.2025 qua encroachers of Government lands (extracted hereinbefore) and proceed to accomplish the incomplete project of widening/expansion of the road as

¶583

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶584

Page 87 of 88

¶585

described in the revised/modified Comprehensive Development Plan.

¶586

18. With such observation and direction, these writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos.6497 of 2024 and 15819 of 2025 are disposed of and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶587

I agree.

¶588

(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶589

Signature Not Verified

¶590

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:41:20

¶591

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

¶592

The 18^th March, 2026//Aswini/Bichi/MRS/Laxmikant

¶593

W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.15819 of 2025

¶594

Page 88 of 88

Basanta Digi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Digi 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

Sheranwali Infrasture Pvt.Ltd.,Angul Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal Vs Union of India

M/S.Misrilall Mines Private Ltd, West Bengal Vs State of Odisha

Saibu Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sibu Kanungo Vs State of Odisha