Right To Shelter Not Right To Obstruct Redevelopment: Orissa High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions On Shantipalli Slum Land Rights, Upholds State’s In-Situ Rehabilitation Scheme
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi has dismissed a set of writ petitions filed by slum-dwellers who challenged the State authorities’ refusal to confer land rights over Shantipalli Basti at Saheed Nagar in Bhubaneswar and contested steps taken for their removal. Upholding the State government’s decision to acquire and use the basti land for an in-situ redevelopment project, the Court accepted the plan to construct multi-storied apartment units to rehabilitate eligible residents in phases under a beneficiary-contribution framework. It further directed the petitioners and similarly placed occupants to relocate to designated transit facilities within a prescribed time so that the municipal and development authorities can proceed with completion of the housing scheme.
The matter concerns petitions seeking settlement of land in favour of residents of Shantipalli Basti, Sahid Nagar, under the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and Bhubaneswar Development Authority. The petitioners claimed that their families had been residing in the area for three to four generations and that they qualified as slum dwellers under the State-led rehabilitation initiatives.
They noted that more than 400 families resided in the basti and had been issued ration cards, voter IDs, Aadhaar cards and provided facilities such as schools, anganwadi centres, water supply and electricity. They asserted that although they acknowledged their occupation of government land as unauthorized, the administration had implicitly recognized them and failed to issue statutory eviction notices. They alleged that eviction instructions were made through loudspeaker announcements and that their representation dated 10.10.2017 to the Chief Secretary had remained unanswered.
The opposite parties submitted that earlier guidelines stood superseded upon implementation of the Rajiv Awas Yojana and subsequently the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. It was submitted that the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017 mandates a sequential process of identification of eligible slum dwellers followed by allotment of housing under PMAY subject to the beneficiary’s contribution. Under PMAY, the State Level Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee had determined ₹1.5 lakh as the mandatory beneficiary contribution for EWS units. The BDA reported that 849 eligible beneficiaries were identified, 562 dwelling units completed and 462 allotted, but several allottees had not vacated the land or paid their contribution despite the availability of loans, preventing commencement of the second phase of construction. The respondents further stated that 1300 eligible beneficiaries had been identified and temporary rehabilitation would be provided in designated transit houses until permanent units were handed over.
The Court recorded that the petitioners and their predecessors had lived in the basti for decades but stated, “their occupation of Government land is unauthorized” and that “long and continuous possession of public land… does not confer ownership or indefeasible right to remain in possession.” It stated that “the right to shelter under Article 21 is a right to reasonable housing and rehabilitation, not a right to trespass or continue illegal occupation.”
The Court observed that the actions of the State, BMC and BDA were “firmly tethered to the statutory architecture of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, fortified by the policy contours of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban).” It stated that the State had “embarked upon a structured, budgeted, and meticulously conceived programme of in-situ redevelopment.” “The right to shelter is a right to be protected, not a right to obstruct.”
The Court recorded that the transferral of Ac.19.395 dec. of land to BDA was “not a mechanical administrative gesture, but a deliberate executive act effectuating the statutory mandate” and that the redevelopment was “a visionary exercise in urban transformation intended to replace precarious shanties with durable and dignified dwelling units.”
On the beneficiary contribution, the Court stated that the SLSMC had “prescribed the beneficiary contribution at Rs.1,50,000/- in unwavering fidelity to the PMAY’s normative architecture.” It recorded that the amount was “tempered by reason, shaped by financial realism and softened by the availability of institutional credit for those unable to tender the sum upfront.”
The Court observed that an extensive administrative exercise had been carried out and that “the constitutional requirement is fairness, not perfection; what has been exhibited here is fairness in abundance.” It further recorded that allowing resistance to the project “would enable private hesitance to prevail over public interest, frustrating the constitutional mandate.”
The Court held that “the legality of the land transfer to the BMC/BDA and the determinations of the SLSMC including fixation of beneficiary contribution stand affirmed. The substantial progress already achieved in Phase-I” and held that there is “pressing public interest in commencing and completing Phase-II without further obstruction.”
The petitioners shall relocate to the designated transit accommodation, equipped with minimum humane facilities, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Court. The BMC and BDA shall extend financial facilitation, including bank-linked credit support, to beneficiaries unable to pay the contribution upfront.”
“The interim order of status quo shall stand vacated, insofar as it impedes the continuation of construction, upon the petitioners’ failure to comply within the prescribed period. A Monitoring Committee, akin to that envisaged in Shantistar (supra) shall be constituted to oversee the fairness of allotments, adequacy of transit facilities, and seamless facilitation of financial support.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Koushik Anand Guru, Adv.; Mr. M.K. Dash, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC; Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates; Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Adv. along with associates; Mr. Sanjib Swain, Adv.; Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv.; Mr. Akash Acharya, Adv.
Case Title: Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.12057 of 2023 with connected matters
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
