Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi has held that the demolition of a community structure by the revenue authorities was illegal and executed in violation of procedural and constitutional mandates. The Court found that the demolition occurred during the pendency of legal proceedings and despite judicial orders explicitly restraining such action. It was further noted that none of the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022 had been followed.

In response, the Court directed the State to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the personal salary of the concerned Tahasildar and the balance to be paid by the State within eight weeks. It also ordered departmental proceedings against the officer and required the Chief Secretary to issue guidelines to all revenue and municipal officials ensuring adherence to demolition protocols prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Right To Levy Penal Charges After Delivery | Section 66 Permits Demand For Misdeclared Goods Irrespective Of Timing

The case concerns a structure known as a "Gosthigruha" or community centre located at Mouza Balipur in Athagarh, Cuttack district, Odisha. The structure, standing on 0.05 acres of Gochar (grazing) land classified as Rakhita Anabadi under Khata No. 616, Plot No. 1261, had existed in various forms since 1985. It was repaired post-cyclone in 1999 and reconstructed using funds sanctioned under “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund between 2016 and 2018. The facility was used for public utility activities such as yoga, health check-ups, and government outreach.

Although situated on Gochar land, there was no initial objection from the authorities. The petitioners were willing to exchange homestead land for the used portion. In July 2024, encroachment notices were issued under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), resulting in proceedings in Encroachment Cases No. 111 and 113 of 2024-25.

Subsequently, W.P.(C) Nos. 19449/2024 and 19450/2024 were filed. The Court disposed of the petitions on 16.08.2024 with a directive to file an application under Section 8A of the OPLE Act. The application was filed on 03.09.2024 and rejected on 30.09.2024 for lack of proof of possession and authenticity of resolutions. An appeal before the Sub-Collector (Appeal Nos. 26 & 27 of 2024) followed along with new writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 29185 and 29258 of 2024). On 29.11.2024, the High Court ordered no eviction during pendency of the appeal.

Despite this, a fresh eviction notice dated 05.12.2024 was served. Petitioners again approached the Court through W.P.(C) Nos. 31269 and 31279 of 2024. On 13.12.2024, the Court reiterated the stay. Yet, on the same day, after reserving the appellate order, a demolition notice was affixed by 5:15 PM indicating demolition would proceed the next morning. The structure was demolished on 14.12.2024 at 10:00 AM.

Petitioners contended that there was no 15-day show cause notice, no reasoned order, no opportunity for hearing or appellate scrutiny, no videography, and no panchanama or public disclosure, all in violation of Supreme Court directions.

The Court recorded that “the demolition was carried out despite two standing judicial directions, and without even the most basic procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.” The Court acknowledged that the Petitioners had occupied the land for over three decades and had received sanctioned public funds for reconstruction.

The judgment stated, “This sequence of events raises not just concerns of administrative lapse, but of deeper institutional failure.” Stating the legal sanctity of the appellate process, the Court remarked, “The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.”

The Court further observed, “When the State proceeds to demolish a structure in that window, knowing that the order has not yet been passed... it raises a serious concern.” Stating the disregard for Article 300-A, the Court cited N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, noting, “If the right to property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law.”

It went on to note, “What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture.” Citing Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, the Court quoted, “There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A.”

Referring to the Tahasildar’s conduct, the Court stated, “The decision to carry out a demolition at that juncture cannot be explained as a procedural misstep. It was a deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was still underway.” The Court stated that procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court “are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates.”

The Court also cited Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., observing, “All administrative norms and principles of fair performance are applicable to them with equal force… the well-established precepts of public trust and public accountability are fully applicable.” It added that, “Avoidance and delay in decision-making process in government hierarchy is a matter of growing concern.”

Summarising, the Court stated, “The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly.” It warned against “bulldozer justice”, stating, “The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one.”

The Court declared the demolition of the community structure as illegal and void ab initio. It directed that compensation amounting to ₹10,00,000 shall be paid to the Petitioners. Of this, ₹2,00,000 shall be recovered from the Tahasildar concerned, to be deducted in reasonable instalments from his salary. The balance amount of ₹8,00,000 is to be paid by the State within eight weeks from the date of presentation of this order.

Also Read: APGENCO Plea Dismissed | Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Tribunal Award Directing Employment of Contract Worker | Says ‘Give Preference by Relaxing Age, Qualifications in Line with Constitutional Ethos’

The Court further directed that departmental proceedings be initiated against the concerned Tahasildar. It also ordered that a copy of this judgment be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary for necessary compliance.

Additionally, the Court mandated that the Chief Secretary shall immediately issue detailed guidelines to all Revenue officials and Municipal authorities of the State, taking into account the procedural requirements specified by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.

The Writ Petition was allowed. The connected contempt petition was disposed of as dropped. Interim orders, if any, stood vacated.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ninad Laud, Advocate; Mr. L. K. Moharana, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1373 of 2025 with CONTC No. 801 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi