Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that eviction proceedings initiated against occupants residing on Amrutamanohi land belonging to Lord Jagannath were lawful and sustainable. The Court directed that eviction notices and subsequent rejection of representations seeking settlement of the disputed land were valid and required no interference. The petitions challenging these actions were dismissed, and interim orders previously granted were vacated. The judgment conclusively determined that the occupants were unauthorized and had no legal right to seek settlement or purchase of the deity’s land under the Uniform Policy.

The dispute concerned eviction proceedings initiated under Section 6(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. Notices were issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, directing residents to vacate land recorded under Khata No.173/1 in Mouza Hatasahi. This land was identified as Amrutamanohi property belonging to Lord Jagannath, represented through the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked To Quash Charge-Sheet Once Cognisance Is Taken | Remedy Lies Under Section 528 BNSS

The petitioners, who were long-term residents on the land, challenged the eviction notice dated 12.01.2024 and the subsequent rejection of their request for settlement through Letter No.2260 dated 21.02.2024 issued by the Chief Administrator (Revenue), Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. The petitioners argued that they had been residing on the property for more than fifty years with their families and submitted documents including Voter ID cards, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, electricity bills, and Khajana Pauti receipts reflecting their residence at the disputed location. They also contended that public infrastructure, including a government school, existed on the same land and that more than one hundred families had settled there without interference.

According to the petitioners, representations were submitted on 01.02.2024 before the Chief Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, enclosing necessary documents and offering to purchase the land under the provisions of the revised “Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Purinka Zamee Bikri Sambandhiya Samana Niti (Uniform Policy).” They claimed that the policy was specifically framed to provide for sale of long-occupied lands and that rejection of their requests was arbitrary and illegal.

The petitioners asserted that the eviction notice wrongly categorized the land as government property rather than Amrutamanohi land belonging to Lord Jagannath. They alleged that contradictory stands were taken by the temple administration, including claims that no applications had been filed or that their representations were not in prescribed form. They further argued that the rejection was mala fide, aimed at dispossessing them for the benefit of other influential parties.

The opposite parties, represented by the State of Odisha and the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, maintained that the petitioners were encroachers who had unlawfully occupied temple property. They submitted that documents like voter cards, ration cards, and utility bills did not confer any legal rights or title to the land. They further stated that the Khajana Pauti receipts were fabricated and that occasional payments, if made, did not establish ownership or tenancy rights.

It was contended that the Uniform Policy of 2002–03 was never intended to regularize unlawful occupation or to allow encroachers to claim ownership. The opposite parties further submitted that no valid applications had been filed by the petitioners in prescribed form, and therefore the rejection was justified. They asserted that the eviction proceedings under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 were valid and that the Tahasildar had full jurisdiction to issue notices to unauthorized occupants. Allegations of collusion or prejudice were denied.

The Court recorded that the central issue for determination was whether the petitioners could claim settlement of the disputed land under the Uniform Policy by virtue of long residence and ancillary documents, or whether their occupation amounted to mere encroachment warranting eviction. It was stated: “It is not in dispute that the land in question under Khata No.173/1 of Mouza Hatasahi stands recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, with Amrutamanohi status.”

The Court referred to Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, noting: “In terms of Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, apply to unauthorized occupation of lands belonging to the deity as if it were property of the government.” Accordingly, the Court held that the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, was competent to initiate eviction proceedings.

On the petitioners’ reliance on long possession and identity documents, the Court recorded: “The plea of the Petitioners that possession of more than fifty years, coupled with identity documents such as Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card and electricity bills, confers a right to settlement, is misconceived. Such documents may at best reflect residence but do not translate into legal title or authorised possession.”

Regarding the Uniform Policy, the Court observed: “The very object of the Policy is to provide a framework for regularisation of long-standing lawful or otherwise permissible occupation upon compliance with prescribed formalities. It cannot be construed as an instrument for encroachers to seek conferment of ownership.” The Court further stated: “More importantly, Amrutamanohi lands, being attached to the deity and impressed with a public purpose, cannot be alienated contrary to law.”

The Court rejected claims of arbitrariness, noting: “The Chief Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, has correctly held that the Petitioners are unauthorised occupants and that the Uniform Policy is inapplicable to their case. Once the statutory authority has recorded reasons, and the decision is in consonance with the governing Act and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.”

On allegations of mala fide intent and collusion, the Court stated: “Mere averments without cogent material cannot displace the presumption of bona fides attached to statutory orders.”

It was also recorded that eviction proceedings were initiated pursuant to directions of the Court in a prior public interest litigation: “The materials on record disclose that the eviction proceedings were initiated pursuant to directions of this Court in W.P.(C) (PIL) No.14752 of 2019, wherein this Court had directed the authorities to take steps for removal of unauthorised occupation from Amrutamanohi lands. The action now impugned is thus in furtherance of judicial directions and statutory mandate.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court | Forcing DNA Test In Partition Suit To Determine Parentage Infringes Right To Privacy | Section 112 Evidence Act And Mother’s Testimony Held Conclusive

After reviewing the submissions and materials, the Court concluded: “In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the challenge laid by the Petitioners. The land in dispute is an Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath, recorded in the name of the deity, and the Petitioners are unauthorised occupants thereon.”

 “The eviction notice dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, and the rejection order dated 21.02.2024 issued by the Chief Administrator (Revenue), Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, are legal, valid and sustainable in the eye of law.”

 “Accordingly, the W.P.(C) No.15095 of 2024 stands dismissed. Consequently, the aforementioned connected Writ Petitions are also dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the Writ Petitions stands vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Dr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Subrat Satapathy, Advocate; Mr. K. K. Bhuyan, Advocate

Case Title: Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.15095 of 2024 (along with connected cases)
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi