Orissa High Court Upholds Eviction From Jagannath Temple Land; Says Long Occupation Or Aadhar Cards Only Show Residence, Not Ownership
The Orissa High Court has held that 'Amrutamanohi land' belonging to the deity Lord Jagannath cannot be settled in favour of illegal occupants/encroachers only because it is in their possession for decades and they have government identity proofs with the said land.
Dismissing the challenge to eviction notice as well as rejection of representation for settlement of land, a single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“The plea of the Petitioners that possession of more than fifty years, coupled with identity documents such as Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card and electricity bills, confers a right to settlement, is misconceived. Such documents may at best reflect residence but do not translate into legal title or authorised possession.”
The case arose from an eviction notice dated January 12, 2024 which was issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, alleging that the petitioners had encroached upon Government land. The petitioners, who happen to be labourers, are residing with their families for more than fifty years over the said land, which admittedly forms part of the 'Amrutamanohi property' of Lord Jagannath.
Upon receiving the eviction notice, the petitioners submitted individual representations-cum-proposals dated 01.02.2024 before the Chief Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, requesting that their cases be considered for settlement of the land. They even expressed willingness to purchase the land at such cost as may be determined by the authority in accordance with the revised Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Purinka Zamee Bikri Sambandhiya Samana Niti ('the Uniform Policy').
However, such representations were turned down stating that the petitioners had occupied the said land without any authority and thus, the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar was requested to take steps for release of the occupied land, and that the provisions of the Uniform Policy were not applicable to them.
The thrust of petitioners' argument was that the eviction notice issued by the Tahasildar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 ('the OPLE Act') is not valid in the eyes of law since the land belongs to Lord Jagannath and not to the government. Secondly, they have been in continued possession over the said land for decades and have been paying property tax, coupled with possessing identity proofs with the same address, for which the land should be settled in their favour under the Uniform Policy.
After hearing contentions of both sides, Justice Panigrahi formed the issue for consideration, i.e. whether by virtue of their long residence and ancillary documents, can the petitioners claim settlement of the disputed land under the Uniform Policy, or whether their occupation amounts to mere encroachment over the temple property warranting eviction under the OPLE Act.
Admittedly, the disputed land in question stood recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, with 'Amrutamanohi' status. In terms of Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, the Court clarified, the provisions of the OPLE Act apply to unauthorised occupation of lands belonging to the deity as if it were property of the government. Thus, it held, the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, was fully competent to initiate eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act.
The plea regarding ownership on the basis of possession of the property for more than fifty years, along with identity documents such as Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card and electricity bills was held to be untenable since such documents at best reflect the proof of residence but do not per se confer legal title upon encroachers.
“With respect to the Uniform Policy of 2002–03, the Petitioners have not established that they fulfil the conditions therein. The very object of the Policy is to provide a framework for regularisation of long-standing lawful or otherwise permissible occupation upon compliance with prescribed formalities. It cannot be construed as an instrument for encroachers to seek conferment of ownership. More importantly, Amrutamanohi lands, being attached to the deity and impressed with a public purpose, cannot be alienated contrary to law,” it further held.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the eviction order as well as rejection of representation.
Case Title: Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 15095 of 2024 & batch
Date of Judgment: August 19, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Dr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Subrat Satapathy & Mr. K.K. Bhuyan, Advocates
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 115