Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack
Order Date: 03.09.2026
Case Overview
- Petition: W.P.(C) No.28041 of 2026, CNR No.ODHC010652612026, filed by Nisha Nayak (petitioner) represented by counsel Mr. Tapan Kumar Biswal, against State of Odisha & Ors., represented by Additional Govt. Advocate Mr. Debasish Nayak.
- The petitioner alleges that the opposite parties are proceeding with eviction through loudspeaker announcement without granting her a hearing; her family has resided on the case land for several decades; she relies on USHA Survey enumeration linked to the erstwhile Rajiv Awas Yojana and claims land‑right certificates have been issued to similarly situated households while her claim remains pending.
- The Court notes legal precedents: Olga Tellis v. BMC (right to livelihood under Art.21, no right to occupy public land), Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (reasonable notice required after long occupation), Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (right to shelter as part of dignified life). It distinguishes between title claim and entitlement to land‑right, stating that ration cards, electricity connections, or survey documents do not confer title, though enumeration is relevant material.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (O.P. No.3) to grant the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing and to verify:
(i) her status in the USHA Survey and records of the erstwhile Rajiv Awas Yojana or any successor framework;
(ii) whether she was merely enumerated or included in the final list of eligible beneficiaries;
(iii) the ownership, classification and legal assignability of the case land;
(iv) the basis on which land‑right certificates, if any, were issued to similarly situated persons.
- The Commissioner must pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order and the writ petition.
- If settlement of the case land is legally impermissible, the authority shall consider the petitioner’s eligibility for alternative housing, relocation or other rehabilitation benefits under law or policy.
- 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. If the claim is rejected, no coercive action shall be taken for a further fifteen days from the communication of the order, allowing the petitioner to avail legal remedies.
- The Court clarifies that it has not adjudicated the petitioner’s title over the land nor directed automatic settlement in her favour; the protection granted does not create any equity or proprietary right.
- An urgent certified copy of the order is to be granted on proper application.
Topics: Eviction, Housing Rights, Land‑Right Verification