Orissa High Court
Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra vs State Of Odisha And Ors. …. Opposite … on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1373 of 2025
Along with
CONTC No.801 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra .... Petitioner(s)
&Ors.
(in both the Petitions)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ninad Laud, Adv.
Along with
Mr. L. K. Moharana, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Smt. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-04.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Since both the cases are interlinked, both the cases are being heard
and disposed of together. However, this Court feels it appropriate to
Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
treatW.P.(C) No.1373 of 2025 as the leading case for proper
adjudication of both the matters.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to declare the
demolition of the community structure as illegal, order its
reconstruction at State expense, award compensation for loss and
hardship suffered, and initiate proceedings against officials
responsible for violating binding judicial orders and constitutional
safeguards.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The dispute pertains to a structure known as 'Gosthigruha' or
Community Centre, constructed on a portion of land measuring Ac.
0.05 dec out of a total of Ac. 1.87 dec, classified as Gochar (grazing)
land under Khata No. 616, Plot No. 1261, located at Mouza: Balipur,
Tahasil: Athagarh, District: Cuttack.
(ii) This land is recorded in the name of RakhitaAnabadi and falls under
the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act).
According to the petitioners, the structure existed in some form since
1985, repaired post-cyclone in 1999, and was reconstructed in 2016-18
using public funds sanctioned under the “Ama Gaon
AmaVikasYojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.
(iii) The community centre was used by villagers for public utility
purposes, including awareness drives, yoga camps, health check-ups,
and government outreach programmes. The land, though classified as
Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
Gochar, was neither objected to by authorities at the time of
construction nor encroached forcibly. Villagers expressed willingness
to exchange homestead land in lieu of the Gochar portion used.
(iv) In July 2024, encroachment proceedings were initiated under the
OPLE Act via Notices dated 26.07.2024 in Encroachment Cases No.
111 and 113 of 2024-25. Petitioners challenged the proceedings by
filing W.P.(C) Nos. 19449/2024 and 19450/2024, which were disposed
of by the Hon’ble High Court on 16.08.2024, directing the Petitioners
to file an application for settlement under Section 8A of the OPLE Act.
(v) The said application was filed on 03.09.2024 and was rejected on
30.09.2024 citing lack of documentary proof of continuous possession,
inauthenticity of resolutions, non-compoundability of the land
category, and absence of registration.
(vi) The rejection was followed by an appeal before the Sub-Collector in
Encroachment Appeal Nos. 26 & 27 of 2024, and simultaneously
W.P.(C) Nos. 29185 and 29258 of 2024 were filed. On 29.11.2024, the
High Court directed that no eviction shall take place during the
pendency of the appeal.
(vii) Despite the order, a new eviction notice dated 05.12.2024 was issued,
prompting the Petitioners to approach the High Court again in
W.P.(C) Nos. 31269 and 31279 of 2024. On 13.12.2024, the High Court
reiterated its stance, restraining eviction during the pendency of the
appeals.
(viii) On the same day (13.12.2024), the Sub-Collector concluded the
hearing and allegedly reserved orders in the appeal around 4 PM.
Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
However, at approximately 5.15 PM, a demolition notice was affixed,
indicating that the structure would be demolished the next morning
(14.12.2024).
(ix) On 14.12.2024 at 10:00 AM, the structure was demolished, allegedly
without affording the Petitioners adequate time to challenge the order
or vacate the premises.
(x) The Petitioners allege that the actions of the revenue authorities
violated the binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, WP(C)
No. 295/20221, specifically:
a. No 15-day show cause notice was issued.
b. No reasoned demolition order was provided explaining why
lesser alternatives were not explored.
c. Petitioners were not afforded the mandatory appellate
opportunity.
d. The demolition was not video graphed, nor was a demolition
report prepared.
e. There was no opportunity for personal hearing, and statutory
procedures such as intimation to the Collector, uploading to a
public portal, and Panchanama inspection reports were
allegedly skipped.
(xi) In view of the foregoing, the Petitioners pray that this Court declare
the demolition of the community structure as illegal and void ab
initio; direct the restitution and reconstruction of the demolished
1
W.P.(C) No. 295/2022.
Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
structure at the personal cost of the concerned officers responsible for
the unlawful action; award compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 crore for
the mental agony, reputational damage, and litigation expenses
incurred by the Petitioners; and initiate contempt proceedings against
the officials involved for wilful disobedience of the binding directions
issued by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 295/2022.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The demolition of the structure was allegedly in flagrant violation of
the Supreme Court’s directions in WP(C) No. 295/2022, which
explicitly mandates procedural safeguards like show cause notice,
hearing, recording of reasons, waiting period, and transparency. The
demolition with just 17 hours’ notice of intimation, without a prior
show cause notice, is claimed to be unlawful.
(ii) Petitioners emphasize that the High Court had, on multiple occasions
(29.11.2024 and 13.12.2024), directed that no coercive action shall be
taken during pendency of appeal. The demolition carried out just
hours after reserving the appeal orders is submitted to be a wilful
breach of these judicial directions.
(iii) Petitioners assert that by immediately acting upon the rejection of the
appeal (assuming it was even pronounced), they were denied the
statutory right to prefer revision under Section 12(2) of the OPLE Act
and the 15-day appellate period prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
(iv) The Petitioners submit that the haste, secrecy, and sequence of events
surrounding the demolition indicate premeditation, arbitrariness, and
possible mala fides on the part of revenue authorities, including acting
in concert to pre-empt legal remedies.
(v) The entire process is alleged to be in violation of constitutional
guarantees, including the rule of law and principles of natural justice,
particularly the right to be heard and to seek redressal against state
action.
(vi) Petitioners argue that State actors, including Tahasildar and Sub-
Collector, are under a constitutional obligation to act fairly,
transparently, and within the bounds of law. The action, if found
unlawful, not only vitiates procedural propriety but also attracts
personal liability under paras 93-94 of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. The Opposite Parties contend that the structure in question was an
unauthorized encroachment on Gochar land, recorded as Rakhita
Anabadi, and despite being given opportunities under the OPLE Act,
the Petitioners failed to establish any legal right or valid possession;
thus, the demolition was a lawful enforcement action carried out in
accordance with statutory powers.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
7. The core grievance of the Petitioners arises from the demolition of a
long-standing community structure, a Gosthigruha, standing on
Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
Gochar land, alleged to have been executed without adherence to
procedural safeguards mandated by law, and in open defiance of this
Court’s own interim orders dated 29.11.2024 and 13.12.2024.
8. The facts are largely undisputed. The Petitioners had been in
occupation of the land in question for over three decades. The
structure had received government-sanctioned funds for
reconstruction and was used for community and welfare purposes.
The record reflects that encroachment proceedings were initiated in
July 2024, followed by an application under Section 8A of the OPLE
Act which was rejected. An appeal was preferred and was pending as
of 13.12.2024, the day the demolition notice was affixed. The
demolition was carried out within 17 hours on the morning of
14.12.2024.
9. This sequence of events raises not just concerns of administrative
lapse, but of deeper institutional failure. An act as final and
irreversible as demolition was carried out despite two standing
judicial directions, and without even the most basic procedural
safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in
the matter of demolition of structures (W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022,
decided on 13.11.2024) (Supra).
10. The Supreme Court in that case, invoking Article 142, issued
mandatory directions, inter alia, that no demolition shall take place
without:
a. a 15-day show cause notice,
b. a reasoned order explaining why demolition is the only option,
Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36c. a fair opportunity for appellate and judicial scrutiny,
d. video documentation of the act of demolition,
e. and uploading of all notices and orders on a digital portal for
transparency.
None of these conditions were fulfilled in the present case.
11. What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the
breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to
constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition
did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the
outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out
while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the
appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had
been pronounced.
12. This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where
the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in
anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter
being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty
procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work.
The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because
it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the
court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.
13. When the State proceeds to demolish a structure in that window,
knowing that the order has not yet been passed, knowing that judicial
scrutiny is underway, it raises a serious concern. This is not how
institutions committed to constitutional governance are expected to
Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
behave. There must be clarity on this point. Acting while an order is
reserved is not simply premature. It is, in substance, an attempt to
outpace the law itself. That cannot be condoned.
14. What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such
executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are
deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a
shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law
requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of
those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete.
This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of
administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a
constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not
through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.
15. Forcible dispossession of a person from their property, without
adherence to due process of law, constitutes not only a violation of
their constitutional right under Article 300-A but also an affront to
basic human rights. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of N.
Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy2held as follows:
“21. If the right to property is a human right as also a
constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except
in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution
protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to
divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly
construed.”
2
(2008) 15 SCC 517.
Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
16. This observation reinforces a fundamental principle: the protection
under Article 300-A is not merely procedural but substantive in
nature. It draws a constitutional boundary around the exercise of state
power over property. The point finds further elaboration in the
reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in JilubhaiNanbhaiKhachar
v. State of Gujarat3, where the requirement of a statutory foundation
for any such deprivation was categorically affirmed:
“48. … In other words, Article 300-A only limits the
powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. There has to be no
deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by
any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under
Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no
deprivation.”
17. What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the
integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates
to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows
is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed
by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed
when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends
legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes
expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance.
This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here
is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against
arbitrariness.
3
1995 Supp (1) SCC 596.
Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
18. The demolition of the Gosthigruha may be defended by the State as an
act of regulatory enforcement, but the Court finds no such legitimacy
in its execution. The speed and secrecy with which it was undertaken,
in open defiance of judicial restraint, gives the impression not of
public administration but of covert operation. Structures built with
public funds, maintained for public welfare, and functioning without
any recorded opposition for decades, were reduced to rubble in a
span of minutes, without affording even the courtesy of lawful
procedure. It is not the structure alone that has been demolished. It is
the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through
confrontation but through courts. The executive is not merely
expected to enforce orders, it is expected to wait when courts ask it to
pause. That pause was wilfully ignored.
19. This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Tahasildar, whose
actions in this case reflect a steady and conscious departure from the
standards expected of a responsible public officer. When judicial
directions were first issued, there was an opportunity to act with
restraint and deference to the process of law. As the matter progressed
and remained pending before the appellate authority, the expectation
of caution became even more pressing. Yet, when the hearing
concluded and the order was reserved, the Tahasildar proceeded not
with circumspection, but with haste. The decision to carry out a
demolition at that juncture cannot be explained as a procedural
misstep. It was a deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was
still underway.
Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
20. The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a
position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility,
particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To
act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome
of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court
cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in
compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct
undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of
public administration.
21. The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court
in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures(Supra),
are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The
Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request
compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as
peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The
failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned
order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video
documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are
compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance.
A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in
favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts
against it.
22. The Court notes with concern that such behaviour, if left
unaddressed, could set a dangerous precedent, where field-level
officers entrusted with significant statutory powers begin to treat
Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
judicial timelines as administrative gaps to be tactically exploited. The
conduct reflects a troubling pattern where legal process is treated as
optional. Acting during the pendency of proceedings signals
disregard for institutional boundaries. It reduces adjudication to an
afterthought and weakens the authority of courts in matters where
their oversight is critical. This Court must categorically disabuse any
such notion. Officers acting in defiance of binding judicial norms are
not performing their duty, they are undermining the very scaffolding
of lawful Statehood.
23. In reinforcing this accountability, the Supreme Court in Delhi Airtech
Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P4., unequivocally affirmed that when
executive action defies the twin pillars of rule of law and separation of
powers, the doctrine of public trust is not merely implicated, it is
triggered as a shield for the public interest. It held as follows:
“213. These authorities are instrumentalities of the State
and the officers are empowered to exercise the power on
behalf of the State. Such exercise of power attains greater
significance when it arises from the statutory provisions.
The level of expectation of timely and just performance of
duty is higher, as compared to the cases where the power is
executively exercised in discharge of its regular business.
Thus, all administrative norms and principles of fair
performance are applicable to them with equal force, as they
are to the government department, if not with a greater
rigour. The well established precepts of public trust and
public accountability are fully applicable to the functions
which emerge from the public servants or even the persons
holding public office.
4
(2011) 9 SCC 354.
Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
214. In State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 430]
, this Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review,
stated that the doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies to
the acts done by the officers in the hierarchy of the State.
They have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate
public purpose.
215. The concept of public accountability and performance
of functions takes in its ambit, proper and timely action in
accordance with law. Public duty and public obligation both
are essentials of good administration whether by the State or
its instrumentalities. In Centre for Public Interest
Litigation v. Union of India [(2005) 8 SCC 202 : (2006) 1
SCC (Cri) 23] , this Court declared the dictum that State
actions causing loss are actionable under public law. This is
a result of innovation, a new tool with the courts which are
the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens and would
ensure protection against devastating results of State
action. The principles of public accountability and
transparency in State action are applicable to cases of
executive or statutory exercise of power, besides requiring
that such actions also not lack bona fides. All these
principles enunciated by the Court over a passage of time
clearly mandate that public officers are answerable for both
their inaction and irresponsible actions. If what ought to
have been done is not done, responsibility should be fixed on
the erring officers; then alone, the real public purpose of an
answerable administration would be satisfied.
216. The doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies to the
acts done by the officers. There is a presumptive evidence of
regularity in official acts, done or performed, and there
should be faithful discharge of duties to elongate public
purpose in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Avoidance and delay in decision-making process in
government hierarchy is a matter of growing concern.
Sometimes delayed decisions can cause prejudice to the
rights of the parties besides there being violation of the
statutory rule.
Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
217. This Court had occasion to express its concern in
different cases from time to time in relation to such matters.
In State of A.P. v. Food Corporation of India [(2004) 13
SCC 53 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 873] , this Court observed that it
is a known fact that in transactions of government business,
no one would own personal responsibility and decisions
would be leisurely taken at various levels.
218. Principles of public accountability are applicable to
such officers/officials with all their rigour. Greater the
power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and
fair. The dimensions of administrative law permit judicial
intervention in decisions, though of administrative nature,
which are ex facie discriminatory. The adverse impact of
lack of probity in discharge of public duties can result in
varied defects, not only in the decision-making process but
in the final decision as well. Every officer in the hierarchy of
the State, by virtue of his being “public officer” or “public
servant”, is accountable for his decisions to the public as
well as to the State. This concept of dual responsibility
should be applied with its rigours in the larger public
interest and for proper governance.”
24. What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a
continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on
officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the
limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a
decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office
to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken
in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the
consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of
democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by
enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost
Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs
deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s
confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the
legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a
weapon.
25. The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly
referred to as “bulldozer justice”, where executive power, backed by
machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of
demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance
and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a
coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional
sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has
spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow
reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of
State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions
tasked with upholding the rule of law.
V. CONCLUSION:
26. The Tahasildar has shown undue haste in demolishing the structure,
without adhering to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of
India. In determining the quantum of compensation, this Court has
taken into account the nature and purpose of the demolished
structure, the conduct of the authorities, and the attendant
constitutional violations. The community centre in question, though
modest in size, served as a vital public utility space, constructed
through sanctioned public funds and used for welfare-oriented
Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
functions such as health camps, government outreach, and awareness
programmes. The demolition was not preceded by the mandatory
procedural safeguards, and was carried out despite subsisting judicial
orders restraining such action. The petitioners were compelled to
engage in multiple rounds of litigation, incurring legal expenses and
enduring mental distress. This Court is of the view that the breach of
judicial directions and procedural obligations, coupled with the
manner and timing of the demolition, warrants public law
compensation.
27. Having regard to the cost of reconstruction, the loss suffered, and the
gravity of administrative misconduct, compensation is assessed at
₹10,00,000. Of this, ₹2,00,000 shall be recovered from the Tahasildar
concerned, to be deducted in reasonable instalments from his salary,
given his direct involvement in the unlawful act. The balance amount
of ₹8,00,000 shall be paid by the State to the Petitioner within a period
of eight weeks from the date of presentation of this order.
28. Appropriate Departmental proceedings shall be initiated against the
Tahasildar, and a copy of this judgment shall be placed before the
Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary for necessary compliance. It is
further directed that the Chief Secretary shall immediately issue a
detailed guidelines to all the Revenue officials and Municipal
authorities of the State taking into account the guidelines issued by
the Supreme Court in, In re: Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures, W.P.(C) No.295 of 2022.
29. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed.
Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
30. Consequently, the CONTC is disposed of being dropped.
31. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th June, 2025/
Page 18 of 18