The Orissa High Court ruled that the right to shelter under Article 21 guarantees reasonable housing and rehabilitation. It clarified that this right does not permit illegal occupation of government land, reinforcing public interest in urban redevelopment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BHUBANESWAR: The Orissa High Court recently ruled on the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that this right guarantees reasonable housing and rehabilitation, not illegal occupation of government land. The verdict came in the matter of Shantipalli Basti, located in Sahid Nagar under the jurisdiction of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA).
Case Background
The case was filed through Writ Petitions by residents of Shantipalli Basti, claiming long-term residence spanning several generations. The petitioners sought recognition and benefits under the Government of Odisha’s Jaga Mission, a program designed to identify, upgrade, and rehabilitate slum dwellers across the state. The basti is home to over 400 families, including members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), the Scheduled Tribes (ST), and other weaker sections.
The petitioners highlighted that their residence had been documented through government-issued Ration Cards, Voter ID cards, and Aadhaar Cards, and children attended local schools and Anganwadi centres. However, they alleged that they were orally asked to vacate the land for a private apartment project, without receiving formal eviction notices from the authorities.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, presiding over the case, clarified that long-standing possession of government land does not create ownership rights. The Court emphasized:
- Article 21 guarantees a right to reasonable housing and rehabilitation, not the right to trespass or illegal occupation.
- Encroachments on public land cannot be regularized simply because of long possession.
- The State has a constitutional duty to reclaim public land for planned urban development.
The Court noted that the State of Odisha, BMC, and BDA were acting under the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, and policies such as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), which aim to provide structured rehabilitation to slum dwellers.
The High Court stressed the importance of balancing individual hardships against collective welfare. While the petitioners resisted relocation, the Court highlighted that the redevelopment project aimed to benefit 1,300 families, many of whom had already received allotments for permanent housing.
Key points from the ruling include:
- Judicial review cannot replace expert economic assessment or policy decisions.
- Courts focus on substance over procedural formalities, ensuring fairness without letting minor administrative lapses obstruct public projects.
- Residents who have been surveyed, identified, and offered transit accommodations are substantively accorded natural justice.
The Orissa High Court directed:
- Petitioners must relocate to designated transit accommodations equipped with a minimum of humane facilities.
- BMC and BDA shall provide financial facilitation, including bank-linked credit support, for those unable to pay upfront.
- A Monitoring Committee, similar to the one in the Shantistar case, will ensure fairness in allotments, transit facilities, and financial support.
- The interim order of status quo preventing construction stands vacated if the petitioners fail to comply.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Tusar Kumar Mishra, Koushik Anand Guru, and M.K. Dash
Opposite Parties: ASC Sonak Mishra, Senior Advocates Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocates Sanjib Swain, Niranjan Panda, and Akash Acharya
Case Title:
Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
W.P.(C) No.12057 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Article 21
