The Orissa High Court has delivered a significant judgment, quashing an encroachment case against a private school in Ganjam district while strongly criticizing official apathy and administrative lapses that left a decades-old land settlement plea unresolved due to "missing" records. The court directed revenue authorities to take a fresh decision on the school's land settlement request within three months, emphasizing the institution's role as an educational lifeline.
Court Slams Missing Files and Administrative Lapses
Justice S K Panigrahi, in his ruling, expressed strong disapproval of the situation where an official file had gone "missing" for decades. He observed that it is unacceptable for such administrative failures to persist, and the consequences of these lapses cannot be unfairly thrust upon an institution that has been operating for over three decades with the knowledge of authorities.
The judge highlighted that the pendency of an alienation proposal creates a legal bar against treating the occupant as a wilful encroacher until a proper decision is taken. This principle was central to the court's reasoning in protecting the school from arbitrary eviction actions.
School's Educational Contribution Recognized
Justice Panigrahi described the school as an "educational lifeline" for the locality, noting its continuous operation since 1992 at Golanthara village. The institution caters to over 800 students from Classes 1 to 10 and has been imparting education for more than 30 years, including providing free education to 10% of its students in compliance with the Right to Education Act.
The court emphasized that reviving or initiating eviction proceedings "in medias res" (in the midst of things) would be arbitrary, particularly when the encroachment case from 2007 had remained in abeyance for over a decade without resolution.
Specific Directions for Revenue Authorities
In its detailed order, the High Court provided clear directives to the concerned officials:
- The sub-collector of Ganjam and the Konisi tehsildar must decide the alienation case from 1992 expeditiously
- If the original file remains untraceable, authorities must reconstruct the case from available records
- A reasoned order must be passed within three months from the date of the judgment
The court specifically ordered that until this decision is made, the school shall not be evicted from its premises. Even in case of an adverse decision, the institution must be given at least six months to vacate the premises, ensuring minimal disruption to students' education.
Court's Caution Against Mechanical Eviction
Justice Panigrahi cautioned the state government against "mechanically wielding the axe of eviction" at the cost of children's education. This warning underscores the court's recognition of the broader social impact of such administrative decisions, particularly when they affect educational institutions serving local communities.
Background of the Case
The judgment was delivered on January 22 on a petition filed by the private school, which has been functioning since 1992. The school alleged that while an alienation case was initiated in 1992 for settlement of one acre of government land in its favor, the matter remained undecided as official records went "missing" over the years.
State authorities had contended that neither the alienation case nor the encroachment proceeding was traceable in official files. They claimed the school was occupying gochar (grazing) land as well as land belonging to a government high school.
Court's Rejection of Blanket Prohibition
The High Court rejected the state's blanket stand that no private entity can ever be settled on gochar (grazing) land. The bench noted that government policies do permit allotment of such land for public purposes like schools, subject to stringent procedures and proper evaluation.
The court took particular note of a 2009 order from the tehsildar, which recorded that the alienation file had been requisitioned from the sub-collector but not received, leading to deferment of the encroachment action. This documentation supported the school's claims of administrative delays and missing records.
This judgment serves as a strong reminder about the importance of administrative accountability and the need to balance legal procedures with consideration for institutions that serve important public purposes, particularly in the education sector.
