Orissa High Court Criticizes State Government's Slow Implementation of 'No Tolerance' Policy on Land Encroachments
The Orissa High Court has delivered a sharp critique of the state government's implementation of its declared 'no tolerance' policy towards encroachments on public land. The court made these observations while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning alleged inaction on encroachment issues in Champua tehsil of Keonjhar district.
Court Proceedings and Government Affidavit
A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman reviewed the matter on March 18, following an earlier court order dated March 11. The court examined an affidavit submitted by Champua tehsildar Rakesh Kumar Panda, who appeared in person as directed. The affidavit, presented through additional government advocate Sanjay Rath, detailed that a field inspection conducted on February 19 had identified 22 encroachers allegedly occupying government land within Champua tehsil. Legal proceedings have been initiated against these individuals under relevant statutory provisions.
Judicial Observations on Government Responsibility
The bench emphasized the government's fundamental obligation, stating clearly: "It admits no ambiguity that it is the solemn duty of the government to remove all the encroachments from government land as such lands are intended to be utilized for public good and in the larger public interest." However, the court expressed significant concern about the gap between policy declaration and practical enforcement.
The judges specifically noted: "The government has taken a policy decision of 'no tolerance' in respect of encroachments on government land and yet, the implementation of the said policy appears to be abysmally low." This observation highlights a critical disconnect between administrative pronouncements and ground-level execution.
Constitutional Context and Rising Public Concerns
The court addressed the constitutional dimension of property rights, acknowledging Article 300A of the Constitution which protects the right to property. However, the bench clarified unequivocally that such constitutional protection does not extend to illegal occupants. The court stated that unlawful possession cannot create any enforceable right over public land, reinforcing the principle that public resources must be safeguarded for collective benefit.
Furthermore, the bench pointed to a concerning trend of increasing PILs filed by citizens alleging official inaction on encroachment matters. This pattern suggests growing public frustration with administrative delays and perceived government inefficiency in addressing land encroachment issues across the state.
Call for Urgent Action and Disposal of PIL
Emphasizing the need for prompt action, the bench stressed: "A time has come that the government must show alacrity in initiating proceedings under the relevant provisions of law and removing all such encroachments from the government land as such lands can be used for better purposes augmenting to and catering to the need of the public." This statement underscores the court's expectation that the government will accelerate its efforts to reclaim public land for legitimate public purposes.
Since legal proceedings against the identified 22 encroachers are already underway, the court expressed hope for their early conclusion. Based on this progress, the bench disposed of the PIL that had been filed by two local residents of the area. The disposal indicates that while the court acknowledges initial steps taken, it maintains serious reservations about the overall pace and effectiveness of the government's anti-encroachment efforts.
This judicial intervention serves as a significant reminder of the government's accountability in managing public resources and implementing declared policies with genuine commitment and efficiency.
