Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID, Aadhaar, and ration card are mere residence proofs, not ownership rights, upholding eviction of encroachers from Jagannath Temple land.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ORISSA: The Orissa High Court recently delivered a judgment regarding the unauthorised occupation of lands belonging to the revered Jagannath Temple in Puri. In a decision that reinforces statutory authority and the sanctity of temple lands, the Court upheld eviction notices issued against occupants who claimed rights over the property through long-term residence and identity documents.
Background of the Case
The Petitioners, labourers and long-term residents, claimed that they had been residing on the disputed land, part of the Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath, for more than 50 years. They relied on identity documents such as Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, and electricity bills, arguing that these documents established their right to settlement of the land.
The eviction notice was issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, under Section 6(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, declaring the Petitioners as encroachers on government land. Subsequently, the Petitioners applied to the Chief Administrator (Revenue), Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, seeking settlement of the land under the Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Purinka Zamee Bikri Sambandhiya Samana Niti (Uniform Policy). Their request was rejected.
Challenging both the eviction notice and the rejection of their request, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Also Read: CBI Reveals Fake School Used to Forge Certificates in Lalu Yadav’s Land-for-Job Scam
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, in his single-bench ruling, clarified several key points:
- The Court emphasized that identity documents may reflect residence but do not confer legal title or authorised possession. The Petitioners’ claim based on long-term residence and supporting documents was therefore “misconceived.”
- The Court upheld the decision of the Chief Administrator, noting that the Uniform Policy cannot be used by encroachers to claim ownership. The policy is intended only to regularize lawful or otherwise permissible occupation, not to legitimize encroachments.
- The disputed land is Amrutamanohi, meaning it is attached to the deity and dedicated to public purpose. As such, it cannot be alienated contrary to law.
- Allegations of collusion, social prejudice, or malafide intent by authorities were found unsubstantiated. Mere claims without material evidence were insufficient to displace the statutory presumption of bona fide action.
- Under Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, unauthorised occupation of temple lands is treated as encroachment on government property. The Court affirmed that the Additional Tahasildar had full authority to initiate eviction proceedings.
Also Read: [Cash-for-Jobs Scam] “Hearing on Partha Chatterjee Plea Adjourned”: Supreme Court
The Orissa High Court dismissed the Petition, holding that the Petitioners were unauthorised occupants of the Amrutamanohi property. The eviction notice was therefore upheld, reinforcing the legal principle that residence or possession documents do not automatically grant rights over sacred or government lands.
Also Read: Tej Pratap, Hema Yadav, and Others Granted Bail in Land-for-Job Scam Case
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Binod Kumar Mishra
Respondent: Advocates Subrat Satapathy, K. K. Bhuyan
Case Title:
Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha
W.P.(C) No.15095 of 2024
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Job Scam
