Religious Structures On Government Land Not Immune From Eviction | Orissa High Court Upholds Removal Of Toilets Near Dargah Built On Public Premises Classified As ‘Rasta’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order issued under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The Court upheld the legality of the proceedings initiated against a religious institution occupying government land classified as "Rasta" within the municipal limits of Rajgangpur Municipality.
The writ petition arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the Sub-Collector-cum-Estate Officer, Sadar, Sundargarh under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, through O.P.P. Case No. 55/2015. The petitioner in the case was a religious institution known as Lal Baba Dargah (Mazhar), situated at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh. The dispute centered around the occupation of land recorded in government records as Plot Nos. 1052/P, 1053, and 1054 under Khata No. 518 and Khata No. 1 of Mouza Rajgangpur Ka. The land was officially classified as "Rasta."
According to the petitioner's claims, the disputed land was adjacent to a burial ground used by the Muslim community for over a century. The Dargah had been established around forty years ago at the site believed to be the resting place of a saint named Lal Baba. In the absence of sanitation facilities from municipal or governmental authorities, the Dargah Managing Committee constructed thirteen toilets and bathrooms—six for women and seven for men—on the plots in question. These facilities had been in continuous use since their construction and were reportedly accessible to all members of the public free of charge.
On 16.09.2015, the Sub-Collector issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises Act, alleging unauthorised occupation and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be passed. The notice pertained to the aforementioned plots identified as part of public roadways. The petitioner asserted that the notice was only received on 24.09.2015, leaving just two days to respond before the scheduled hearing on 26.09.2015.
As no reply was filed by the petitioner, the Sub-Collector passed an eviction order on 26.09.2015. Challenging this order, the petitioner initially approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 2884 of 2016. The Court disposed of that petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
In compliance, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2016 (OPP EUO) before the Collector, Sundargarh. The appeal was dismissed on 19.07.2016. The Collector found that the land stood recorded in the name of the Government and was classified as "Rasta," thus justifying the eviction.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging both the original eviction order and the appellate dismissal. The petitioner submitted that the land in question, being a public road, was not covered under the definition of "public premises" as contemplated under the Orissa Public Premises Act. It was argued that the appropriate statute, if any, would be the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, which governs occupation of government property, including public roads.
The petitioner further submitted that the sanitation facilities had been erected in response to public need, given the lack of governmental amenities, and that the Rajgangpur Municipality had passed a resolution on 06.01.2014 to provide maintenance funds for the same. Additionally, it was claimed that the structures did not obstruct public passage or vehicular movement.
On the opposing side, the State contended that the land was duly recorded in government revenue records as "Rasta" and therefore squarely fell within the definition of "public premises" under Section 2(f) of the Orissa Public Premises Act. It was submitted that the presence of unauthorised structures impeded future developmental plans, including public sanitation infrastructure to be provided by the civic authorities.
Justice Panigrahi heard submissions from both sides and examined the statutory framework in detail. The judgment opened its reasoning with a review of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The Court stated in clear terms that "public premises are intended to serve the broader public interest, [and] their use must conform to the governing legal framework."
On the core legal question, the Court quoted Section 2(f) of the Act and recorded that "'public premises' include any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council... which either belong to or are taken on lease by the State Government." It held that the classification of the land as "Rasta," combined with its location within municipal limits and government ownership, "clearly establishes that it falls within the definition of 'public premises' under the said Act."
The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that land marked as "Rasta" should instead be governed by the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. It noted that the definitions under the two Acts were not mutually exclusive and that "the classification as 'Rasta' does not exclude the land from the ambit of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972." Rather, the designation reinforced its character as public premises.
Regarding the notice and procedural fairness, the Court observed that the Petitioner had been served with a notice under Section 4 and had the opportunity to show cause. "The Petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, and no material irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice is discernible in the conduct of the authorities," the Court recorded.
On the claim that the structures served a public purpose, the Court stated: "no amount of well-intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions governing the occupation of Government land." The judgment firmly maintained that even constructions made for social or public welfare must be regularised through proper legal channels.
The Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the orders challenged. It explicitly stated: "In view of the foregoing analysis, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned orders dated 26.09.2015 and 19.07.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Estate Officer, Sadar, Sundargarh and the Collector, Sundargarh respectively."
Accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed. The Court also directed that any interim order passed earlier stood vacated. "Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Nanda, Advocate along with Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Sarita Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Lal Baba Dargah (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 14296 of 2016
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi
