Orissa High Court Upholds Eviction Notices for Hingula Temple Development Project
The Orissa High Court has firmly upheld eviction notices issued in connection with the Hingula temple peripheral development project in Talcher, delivering a significant judgment that clarifies the legal standing of long-term occupants on public land. The court dismissed a petition filed by an elderly resident of Gopalprasad village, asserting that no illegality or constitutional violation was involved in the eviction process.
Court's Ruling on Land Possession and Legal Rights
A bench presided over by Justice S K Panigrahi observed that mere possession of identity documents showing residence does not confer any legal right or adverse title over public land. This is particularly relevant when such land is required for a legitimate public purpose. In his judgment dated January 22, Justice Panigrahi reiterated a fundamental legal principle: the passage of time or long occupation, unsupported by documentary title, cannot defeat the rights of the true owner.
Background of the Petition and Petitioner's Claims
The petitioner had challenged eviction notices issued in October and December 2024, arguing that he could not be dispossessed without being provided rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21, claiming he was landless, economically weak, and had been residing on the land for generations.
Land Acquisition History and Legal Status
However, the court noted critical facts about the land in question:
- The land forms part of the Hingula open cast project of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL).
- It was acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act through notifications issued between 1994 and 1997.
- Possession was taken over by MCL in 1999, at which point all private rights on the land were legally extinguished.
Justice Panigrahi recorded that the petitioner had no recorded title or tenancy in revenue or temple records and did not dispute that the land belonged to the government or MCL. His claim of residence for three generations was found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence.
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Considerations
On the issue of rehabilitation, the court acknowledged the existence of resettlement policies for displaced families but held that the petitioner was never identified as a project-affected person at the time of acquisition. Therefore, he could not claim benefits meant for recognised land losers.
Constitutional Interpretation and Final Decision
While expressing sympathy for the petitioner’s economic condition, the bench clarified that Article 21 of the Constitution does not grant encroachers a perpetual right to occupy public land. The writ petition and all four similar petitions were accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the legal framework governing public land use and acquisition in India.
This judgment underscores the importance of documented land rights and the precedence of public purpose in land acquisition cases, setting a precedent for similar disputes in the future.
