HC upholds eviction of unauthorised structure on govt land
The structure is said to be more than 40 years old.
The petitioner had challenged the 2015 eviction order passed by the sub-collector-cum-estate officer (Sadar), Sundargarh, under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The order was later upheld by the Sundargarh district collector in 2016. The petitioner contended that the land, recorded as rasta (road), could not be treated as "public premises" under the Act and cited the existence of long-standing structures used for religious purposes.
However, the court rejected the argument, observing that the land fell squarely within the definition of "public premises" as it lies within the municipal limits of Rajgangpur, and is recorded in the name of the state govt. "The classification as rasta affirms its public character and reinforces its inclusion within the scope of the statute," the court noted.
Justice Panigrahi held that the Orissa Public Premises Act provides a clear legal mechanism for evicting unauthorised occupants from public land and that no distinction could be drawn between different types of govt land when it comes to enforcement.
The court further observed that even if the structure was serving public or religious purposes, such unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised without due legal sanction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
26 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Chief Secretary Over Goalpara Demolition Drive
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea seeking contempt action against the Assam Chief Secretary and other officials for allegedly conducting a mass eviction and demolition drive in Goalpara's Hasila Beel in violation of the apex court guidelines. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, sought responses of Chief Secretary Ravi Kota, Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, Goalpara's District Commissioner Khanindra Choudhury, Goalpara's Superintendent of Police Nabaneet Mahanta, and other officials in the matter. "Issue notice, returnable in two weeks. [P]ersonal presence of the alleged contemnnor(s) is dispensed with, until further orders," ordered the Bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran. As per the plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, no sufficient time or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in an "arbitrary and high-handed manner" a notice was issued to remove their houses, structures, shops, buildings and crops within two days. "The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise." The petitioners, claiming to be landless, said that their forefathers had to settle in the Hasila Beel revenue village of Balijana Revenue Circle about 50 to 60 years ago after losing their houses and land due to the riverbank erosion of the river Brahmaputra. The plea said that the eviction and demolition exercise was carried out without granting a personal hearing and without providing adequate time for appeal or judicial review, in blatant violation of the guidelines issued in the case titled "In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures". In November last year, a bench of then Justice Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan laid down pan-India directives governing demolitions of unauthorised structures. The top court had cautioned that flouting its directions by state authorities will result in criminal contempt and prosecution. Issuing a slew of directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court said that no demolition will be carried out without a prior show-cause notice. It added that the demolition order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days and will be displayed on a designated digital portal to be maintained by every municipal and local authority. The Supreme Court had clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place, such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
India Today
38 minutes ago
- India Today
Mumbai man arrested after being filmed performing indecent act with pet hen
Police have arrested a 45-year-old man in the Borivali area of Mumbai for allegedly indulging in indecent acts with one of his pet hens, and also found that he had sexually harassed a neighbour's minor son by showing pornographic content to him in the past, officials incident occurred on Tuesday night and a complaint was lodged by a man who lives in front of the residence of the per the complaint, the accused, Rajendra Rahate, who is unmarried, has dozens of pet hens at his home. Around 10.30 pm on July 22, the complainant saw him indulging in indecent acts with a hen in his room. The complainant started recording it on his mobile phone, an official said. The complainant's 10-year-old son later told him that the accused had shown him pornographic content on his mobile phone on multiple occasions from 2021 and warned him against telling his parents about it, he on the complaint, the police called Rahate for questioning and later placed him under arrest, the official action against him was taken under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act on the charge of sexually harassing the boy."The angle of animal cruelty is also being investigated to add more charges against the accused. Committing an unnatural act with any animal leads to cruelty, which is also a violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act," the official added.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Ex-BJP MP Gopal Shetty among 2 acquitted by Mumbai court in 20-year-old police assault case as witness turns hostile
Mumbai: With the purported victim claiming that the push might have been unintentional due to the accused being in a hurry, a sessions court recently acquitted former BJP MP Gopal Shetty (71) and party functionary Ganesh Khankar (52) over two decades after they were accused of storming into a police station and attacking a constable. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was alleged that their reaction came after Kasturba Marg police booked Netaji Shinde, a BJP worker from Borivli (E), under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act. The constable turned hostile in court and did not support the prosecution's case. "From overall evidence on record, it appears that both accused visited Kasturba Marg police station at midnight, possibly with the intention of assisting or supporting their party activist, Netaji Shinde, who was detained under the MPDA Act," additional sessions judge Satyanarayan R Navander said. He added that the only witness who partly supported the prosecution case was the constable, and even his testimony was contradictory, vague, and substantially weakened during cross-examination. "No independent or neutral witnesses were examined, and no other officer supported the allegations despite being named in the FIR. The investigating officer himself did not corroborate the allegations. In light of this, a serious doubt arises regarding the prosecution's case," the judge said. The prosecution had alleged that on Sept 10, 2004, at 12.45am, Shetty and Khankar allegedly pushed aside constable Udesh Mohite, forcibly entered Kasturba Marg police station, hurled abuses, and threatened him. They reportedly entered the detection room and abused the cops and threatened police sub-inspector Radheshyam Sharma before leaving. A crucial point in the trial was the deposition of Mohite. While he admitted that one of the accused used insulting words after entering the police station, he denied lodging any complaint against them and claimed to be unaware of what transpired after they entered. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now During examination by the prosecution, he admitted that the accused pushed him and hurled abuses, and that he lodged a complaint. However, during cross-examination by the defence, he stated he could not confirm if it was intentional or accidental. He also did not specify the exact abusive words used. The judge found his testimony to be "extremely weak and unreliable". "Only after being confronted with leading questions did he admit to being pushed and abused, but those allegations are vague and unsupported. The further admissions given by him during the defence cross-examination weaken the prosecution's case even more," the judge said. Sharma deposed that he carried out the investigations and filed the chargesheet. However, he did not state that he personally witnessed the incident or corroborate the allegations in the FIR about him being insulted or intimidated. The case initially proceeded before the Mazgaon magistrate's court, which framed charges against the accused on Jan 30, 2025, and recorded prosecution witness evidence. However, the JMFC lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 353 of the IPC, which was made exclusively triable by the sessions court via a state amendment. Consequently, the matter was committed to the sessions court on June 21. Fresh charges were framed against the accused by the sessions court on July 19, to which both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution opted to rely on the evidence already recorded before the JMFC, and the defence raised no objection.
