Tarun Kumar Mohanta vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 18 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com Orissa High Court
Tarun Kumar Mohanta vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 18 February, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Tarun Kumar Mohanta .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Panda, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A.
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
18 February 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.S. Panda, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and
Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-
Opposite Party.
2. The Petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 03.01.2026
issued by the Tahasildar, Rairangpur under Annexure-6 directing for
eviction of unauthorized encroachment of the Petitioner while rejecting
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
his contention questioning the authority of the Tahasildar to proceed
under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred as “OPLE Act“).
3. The entire contention of the Petitioner is that that Tahasildar,
Rairangpur (Opposite Party No.2) has no jurisdiction to proceed under
the OPLE Act within Rairangpur Municipality area as the provisions of
the OPLE Act is not applicable to such lands.
4. A Division Bench of our Court in Jasobant Parida vs. State of
Odisha and others, 2024 (I) OLR–278, while dealing with an order
of eviction issued under the provisions of OPLE Act has answered a
similar issue that, any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a
Municipality or within an area declared by the State Government to be
an industrial estate, it can be construed to be a public premises and
therefore the action need to be taken against the unauthorized
encroachers is in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short,
“OPP (EUO) Act”). The relevant observations read as follows:-
“9. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration
before this Court in the present appeal is,W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24“Whether the provisions of OPLE Act, 1972 are applicable
to the cases of unauthorised eviction and whether the
statutory authorities under the said Act have jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issue of eviction involved in respect of the
land covered under Municipalities or NACs coming under
urban area in view of the fact that the legislature have
subsequently legislated the provisions of OPP Act, 1972 to
deal with such cases in respect of the land under
Municipality or NAC area?”
xxx xxx xxx
13. The above mentioned provisions, under Subsections(a) to
(e) of Section 2 of the Act, prescribe which can be termed as
the property of the Government. The vires of Orissa
Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1954, as amended by
the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (Amendment)
Act, 1970, was challenged in a writ petition bearing O.J.C.
No. 1584 of 1968. This Court held that Sec. 3 of the Act is
void as it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. In a
series of cases, this Court has also earlier observed that
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were void. As Sections 3, 5 and 6
forming the very core were void, the Court held the entire
Act including the amending Act of 1970 to be void. Thereby,
it was necessary to effect the reenactment of the law
permanently to replace the Ordinance. Under the Scheme of
the Act it is only encroachment of Government land either by
construction of house or otherwise, which can form the
subject-matter of a proceeding under the Act. Since OPLE
Act, 1972 is enacted to provide for prevention of
unauthorized occupation of lands, which are the Government
property as mentioned in Section 2 of the Act, the actionW.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24should be taken in conformity with the said provisions of the
Act.
14. The Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1972, i.e., Odisha Act 7 of 1972 was
assented to by the President on 9th February, 1972 to provide
for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public
premises and for certain incidental matters. “Public
Premises” has been defined under Section 2 (f) to the
following effect:-
“(f) “Public Premises” means any premises situated within
the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared
by the State Government to be an industrial estate and-
(i) belong to or taken on lease by the State
Government or the Board or by any Company,
Corporation, [Municipality], Improvement Trust,
Special Planning Authority; or University; or (ii)
requisitioned by the State Government.”
15. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is made clear that
‘Municipality’ has been substituted by O.A. 1 of 2011-
O.G.E. No. 61 dated 03.01.2011. It is specifically mentioned
that “Public Premises” means any premises situated within
the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an area declared
by the State Government to be an industrial estate. Therefore,
taking into account the object and reasons of enactment of
OPLE Act vis-a-vis OPP Act, the purpose is distinct and
clear to the extent that OPLE Act has been enacted to provide
for prevention of unauthorized occupation of lands which are
the property of the Government, whereas OPP Act has been
enacted to provide for eviction of unauthorized occupants
from “Public Premises” and for certain incidental matters.
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
Thereby, two separate Acts have been enacted for two
distinct purposes, as mentioned above. In view of aforesaid
situation, while interpreting the words or even while
departing strict words used, the Court may find out the
intention of the legislation by referring to the statements of
objects and reasons.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Therefore, taking into consideration the objects and
reasons for enactment of two separate Acts for two distinct
purposes, it is made clear that in view of the provisions
contained in Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act, any premises
situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or within an
area declared by the State Government to be an industrial
estate, it can be construed to be “Public Premises”. If there is
unauthorized occupation without authority of law for such
occupation, then action shall be taken in accordance with the
provisions of OPP Act, 1972. Section 2 (g) also defines
unauthorized occupation, which reads as follows:-
“Unauthorised Occupation” in relation to any
public premises means the occupation by the
person of the public premises without authority
for such occupation and includes the continuance
in occupation by any person of the public
premises after the authority (whether by way of
grant or any other mode of transfer) under which
he was allowed to occupy the premises has
expired or has been determined for any reason
whatsoever.
xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
21. In view of the aforementioned provision, it is the Estate
Officer, as notified by the Government of Odisha by way of
notification, can initiate proceeding for eviction from the
“Public Premises” within the meaning of OPP Act, 1972 by
following due procedure by the Estate Officer for the purpose
of the Act. Even Section 5 of the Act prescribes the eviction
of unauthorised occupants and mechanisms has also been
prescribed under the said Act, i.e., under Section 8 with
regard to power of Estate Officer, under Section-9 with
regard to appeals, under Section 13 regarding imposition of
penalty and under Section 14 bars of suit and proceeding has
been provided for. Thus, there is no iota of doubt that by
insertion of “Municipality” to the definition of Public
Premises, as envisaged under Section 2 (f) with effect from
03.1.2011, the OPP Act is applicable to the municipal areas.
22. Admittedly, in the present case, the Tahasildar
respondent no.5 had issued a notice of show cause on
13.04.2012 in Encroachment Case No. 198/2012 under the
provisions of OPLE Act for eviction, while “Municipality”
has been incorporated by way of amendment to the OPP Act
1972, which has come into force with effect from
03.01.2011. Therefore, any notice given on 13.04.2012 in
Encroachment Case No. 198/2012 by the Tahasildar is
without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eye of law.
23. If very initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is
without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, in view of
the insertion of “Municipality” to the definition of “Public
Premises” under Section 2 (f) of the OPP Act. As such, the
Estate Officer notified by the State Government under
Section 3 of the OPP Act, 1972 has got only jurisdiction to
issue such notice and not the Tahasildar under the OPLE Act.
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
xxx xxx xxx
25. Therefore, if a proceeding initiated under the OPLE Act,
1972 by issuing notice of eviction by the Tahasildar having
no jurisdiction, any order passed by him is nullity in the eye
of law and any consequential steps taken under the said Act
by the respective authorities also cannot be sustained as they
have no jurisdiction, thereby such orders are nullity in the
eye of law.
26. Under the OPP Act, the Estate Officer gets jurisdiction
under Section 4(1) only where the premises are Public
Premises. Section 2(f) of the OPP Act has defined Public
Premises. In order that a premises would be Public Premises,
if it is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council
or Notified Area Council. By way of amendment to the
definition of “Public Premises” under Section 2 (f)
“Municipality” has been incorporated by way of gazette
notification issued on 03.01.2011 that the municipal area
comes under the definition of “Public Premises”. Therefore,
Kamakhyanagar Notified Area Council, having come under
the definition of Public Premises under Section 2 (f) of the
OPP Act, the action for eviction can only be taken by the
competent authority under Section 4 (1) of the OPP Act, i.e.,
by the Estate Officer and not by the Tahasildar.”
5. In the present case at hand, the State has not filed its counter and
it is admitted at the Bar that the encroached area as per the
Encroachment Case No.98 of 2025 is concerning Plot No.847 under
Khata No.283 of mouza-Anladuba and the same is coming within the
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
notified area of Rairangpur Municipality. The Petitioner has though
raised the question of jurisdiction of Tahasildar under the OPLE Act,
but the same has been rejected by the Tahasildar as per Annexure-6.
6. It is further seen that the Tahasildar while rejecting the
contention of the Petitioner questioning his jurisdiction to initiate the
encroachment proceeding in terms of the provisions of the OPLE Act,
has further held that the Tahasildar/Additional Tahasildar are
empowered to carry out eviction even within the municipal limits. This
statement of the Tahasildar is found without supported by any reason
and in view of the law propounded by this Court in Jasobant Parida’s
case (supra), such finding of the Tahasildar is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned notice of the Tahasildar, Rairangpur
dated 03.01.2026 under Annexure-6 directing for eviction of the
Petitioner is quashed. At the same time, it is observed that, all the
Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars of the State by virtue of
Notification dated 27th January 2020 of the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department (Annexure-7) have been declared as Estate
Officers in terms of the provisions under Section 3 of the OPP (EUO)
Act 1972 to exercise the power in respect of their jurisdiction as Estate
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:27:24
Officers. So, as prayed by Mr. D. Nayak, learned A.G.A., it is further
observed that present order shall not stand on the way of the Tahasildar
to proceed as Estate Officer under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 in respect
of unauthorized encroachers, including the Petitioner.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary
W.P.(C) No.1732 of 2026 Page 9 of 9