Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack

Order Date: 17th August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Mano Ranjita Behera, widow of the late Mohan Behera, who was a Chargeman employed by National Aluminium Company Ltd (NALCO).
  • Opposite Parties: The State of Odisha and NALCO authorities (Opposite Parties 5 to 7), including the NALCO Estate Officer.
  • Background: Mohan Behera died on 14‑05‑2021. At the time of his death, the petitioner and her family were occupying NALCO Quarters No.A/229. After his death, electricity and water connections were disconnected, prompting the petitioner to shift to Sunderpada, Bhubaneswar, while locking the doors of the quarters.
  • Allegations: In December 2023, the petitioner lodged an FIR alleging that the NALCO Estate Officer and other officers forcibly entered the locked quarters, broke them open, and stole valuables.
  • NALCO’s Counter‑Statement: NALCO contended that Mohan Behera was discharged from service on 16‑02‑2011 and was therefore not entitled to retain the quarters at the time of his death. NALCO further stated that an eviction proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated during the husband’s lifetime. An eviction order dated 30‑03‑2018 (P.P. Case No.01/2011) directed the petitioner to vacate the premises, with a warning that force could be used if compliance was not achieved.
  • Execution of Eviction: The eviction was executed on 29‑03‑2018 by an authorized officer appointed by NALCO.
  • Police Findings: The criminal case filed by the petitioner was closed by the police with a Final Form stating that the complaint was false. The Final Form is reproduced as Annexure‑J/5.
  • Petitioner’s Prayer: The petitioner sought (i) a mandamus directing the NALCO Estate Officer to take action against the alleged culprits and pay heavy compensation, and (ii) disciplinary action against the Estate Officer for the alleged forcible eviction and theft.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the eviction order of 30‑03‑2018 was issued under the statutory powers of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and therefore could not be challenged for the officer’s action.
  • The petitioner did not appeal the eviction order as provided under the Act, and the police investigation found no merit in her criminal complaint.
  • Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petitioner’s prayers and dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Public Premises Eviction