Orissa High Court Criticizes Systemic Failures in Tackling Public Land Encroachment
The Orissa High Court has strongly condemned the persistent issue of encroachment on public land, labeling it a significant and growing menace within the state. In a recent ruling, the court highlighted systemic lapses in efforts to curb illegal occupation, noting that despite repeated judicial directives, authorities often fail to act in the letter and spirit required to address the problem effectively.
Court Points to Official Negligence and Corruption
The court specifically pointed to lapses on the part of government functionaries, particularly in the revenue administration. It observed that corruption, collusion, or negligence of officials has frequently facilitated illegal occupation of public lands. Field-level officials were criticized for their failure to intervene at the initial stages of encroachment, allowing such activities to become entrenched and difficult to reverse over time.
Case Background: Eviction of Bus Union
The remarks came during the dismissal of an appeal filed by the Koraput District Private Bus Employees Union against eviction proceedings. The union had been operating a private advance ticket counter for 30 years near the sub-divisional police office, close to the old OSRTC bus stand in Jeypore. The Jeypore tehsildar issued an eviction notice, and the sub-collector ordered the union to shift to the new bus stand, citing concerns over traffic congestion and accident risks.
Judicial Ruling and Legal Principles
A division bench of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, in an order dated February 17 and uploaded on February 25, upheld a single judge's decision to reject the union's plea. The bench emphasized that unauthorized occupation cannot claim constitutional protection. It stated that encroachment on public land directly undermines administrative control and hampers planned urban development, posing serious threats to public health, safety, and the environment by reducing space for essential amenities like roads.
The appellants admitted to being unauthorized occupants but claimed possession based on temporary structures used for trade union activities. The court ruled that such occupation does not confer any legal sanctity and clarified that it falls outside the protections of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench noted that mere long-standing occupation does not ripen into a legal right when the initial entry is unauthorized, finding no reason to differ from the single judge's findings.
Rejection of Union's Claims
The union had challenged the eviction, arguing that they were not granted a proper opportunity for a hearing. The bench rejected this submission, referring to the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, which allows for summary eviction of unauthorized occupants. The judges held that the statutory procedure had been followed appropriately, with notices issued as required, thereby dismissing the appeal and reinforcing the need for strict enforcement against land encroachments.
