Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack (Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Order Date: 03.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: W.P.(C) No.28047 of 2026, CNR No.ODHC010652692026, filed by Subasish Samal (Petitioner) against State of Odisha & Others (Opposite Parties).
  • Counsel: Mr. Tapan Kumar Biswal (Petitioner’s counsel) and Mr. Debasish Nayak, Additional Government Advocate for the State.
  • Issue: Opposite Parties began eviction proceedings via loudspeaker announcement without granting the petitioner a hearing; petitioner’s family has lived on the case land for several decades and the dwelling is their sole residence.
  • Petitioner relies on his inclusion in the USHA Survey conducted under the erstwhile Rajiv Awas Yojana, asserting that similarly situated households have received land‑right certificates while his claim remains pending.
  • Legal Principles Cited:
  • No indefeasible right to encroach on public/municipal land merely on long possession; absence of title does not permit summary dispossession.
  • Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation – right to livelihood under Article 21 does not create a right to occupy public land.
  • Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan – reasonable notice required before removal where occupation has subsisted for a considerable period.
  • Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. – right to shelter as part of dignified life.
  • Distinction made between title over land and entitlement to land‑right, housing or rehabilitation benefits; documents such as ration cards, electricity connections, or survey enumerations do not confer title.
  • The USHA Survey and Rajiv Awas Yojana are not allotments or Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patras but are material facts that the competent authority must consider, especially where similarly surveyed households have received land‑right certificates.

Directions

1. The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.3) to:

  • Grant the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.
  • Verify:

(i) Petitioner's status in the USHA Survey and any records related to the Rajiv Awas Yojana or successor housing frameworks;

(ii) Whether he was merely enumerated or included in the final list of eligible beneficiaries;

(iii) Ownership, classification and legal assignability of the case land;

(iv) Basis on which land‑right certificates, if any, were issued to similarly situated persons.

2. Opposite Party No.3 must pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order and the writ petition.

3. If settlement of the case land is legally impermissible, the authority shall separately consider whether the petitioner is eligible for alternative housing, relocation, or any other rehabilitation benefit available under law or policy.

4. Until the above exercise is completed and the reasoned order communicated, the petitioner shall not be evicted and the residential structure shall not be demolished.

5. In the event of rejection of the claim, no coercive action shall be taken for a further period of fifteen days from the date of communication of the order, enabling the petitioner to avail the remedy available in law.

6. The Court clarifies that it has not adjudicated the petitioner’s title over the case land nor directed its automatic settlement in his favour; the limited protection granted does not create any equity or proprietary right.

7. An urgent certified copy of this order is to be granted on proper application.

Final Outcome

  • Eviction and demolition of Subasish Samal’s dwelling are stayed pending a hearing and verification of his survey and housing entitlement status.
  • The Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation must conduct the verification, consider alternative rehabilitation if settlement is impermissible, and issue a reasoned order within six weeks.
  • No coercive action may be taken for fifteen days after the order’s communication if the claim is rejected.

Topics: Eviction, Housing Rights, Land Rehabilitation