Article 21 does not protect illegal occupation of public land, Orissa High Court junks man’s plea against eviction

The Orissa High Court said that it finds no legal mandate to postpone or condition the petitioner’s eviction on the grant of rehabilitation. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• The petitioner is being treated in the same manner as any other unauthorized occupant.
• The Article 14 challenge on grounds of arbitrariness is unsustainable.
• The contention based on Article 21 also does not carry the petitioner’s case far.
• The right to shelter does not translate into a right to squat on public land in perpetuity.
• When a state acquisition or development project is implemented in accordance with law, an affected person cannot invoke Article 21 to veto the project altogether.
• The court finds no legal mandate to postpone or condition the petitioner’s eviction on the grant of rehabilitation.
• He admittedly has no title, and essentially seeks a benevolent protection from eviction on account of his poverty and long association with the place.
• While the court is sympathetic to the petitioner’s plight as an elderly, landless person, it cannot grant relief contrary to law or outside the policy framework.
• No prima facie illegality or constitutional infirmity in the eviction proceedings has been demonstrated.
• It transpires that the petitioner did not disclose that an identical writ petition has been filed by his son regarding the same land and grievance.
• Such suppression of a material fact strikes at the root of maintainability.
• Approaching the court with unclean hands and multiple proceedings amounts to an abuse of process.
• The petitioner has no recorded title or tenancy in the revenue or temple records; indeed, he does not dispute that the land is government property.
• His assertion of continuous residence “for three generations” remains unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence.
• In the absence of any lawful right or legal possession, the petitioner’s status is essentially that of an unauthorised occupant on public land since long after acquisition.
• Long duration of illegal occupation confers no legality, mere passage of time or possession of identity documents showing residence does not vest any right or create any adverse title against the true owner.
• The petitioner cannot seek to vitalize an illegal occupation into a legal entitlement by citing decades of stay.
• The opposite parties have proceeded against the petitioner as an encroacher on government land required for a public development project.
• There is no allegation that the eviction drive targets the petitioner selectively or without jurisdiction.
• The notices were issued after due sanction of a peripheral development plan for Maa Hingula Temple, for which substantial public funds have been allocated.
• The petitioner was given notice and an opportunity to represent his case, which he admittedly did by submitting representations.
• The material on record does not support any arbitrariness or discrimination.

Decision

• Finding no violation of Articles 14, 21, or 300A of the Constitution, the court dismissed the writ petition and all connected cases, vacating any interim protection earlier granted.

Background

• The lead case in the matter was filed by Biswanath alias Bisa Gochhayat, who challenged eviction notices issued in respect of land at Gopalprasad village in the Talcher area.
• The disputed land falls within the ‘Hingula Open Cast Project’ of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) and was acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act through notifications issued between 1994 and 1997.
• Possession of the land was taken over by MCL in 1999.
• The petitioner claimed that he and his forefathers had been residing near the Maa Hingula Temple for nearly three generations.
• He said that they along with him had traditionally earned their livelihood by rendering services at the temple.
• In 2024, he received notices directing him to vacate the land, citing the urgent need for peripheral development works of the temple.

Petitioner’s arguments

• Advocate Rajalaxmi Biswal, appearing for the petitioner argued that eviction without first extending rehabilitation and resettlement benefits violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The counsel submitted that despite being affected by land acquisition and displacement, neither he nor his family had received compensation or rehabilitation under applicable policies.
• Contending that the eviction notices were issued mechanically, the counsel submitted that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s age, poverty, landlessness, and dependence on the area for livelihood.
• It was further argued that removal without rehabilitation would render him homeless and destitute, amounting to an unconstitutional deprivation of livelihood and shelter.

State and MCL’s stand

• Additional Government Advocate Bibekananda Nayak, appearing for the state and advocate Haripad Mohanty, appearing for the MCL opposing the petitions, submitted that the land in question was government land lawfully acquired decades earlier.
• The counsel said that the petitioner had no recorded title or lawful possession.
• They asserted that the petitioner was an unauthorised encroacher who had either settled or continued on the land long after acquisition and therefore had no entitlement to compensation or rehabilitation.
• The counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not disclosing that an identical writ petition concerning the same land had been filed by his son, amounting to an abuse of process.
• They submitted that the land was urgently required for public development linked to the temple and that the eviction notices were issued in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to represent.