'Right To Shelter Not A Shield Against Development': Orissa High Court Upholds Acquisition Of Shantipalli Slum For Redevelopment

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Shantipalli slum-dwellers challenging the action of the government in declining to settle the land in their favour in respect of Shantipalli Basti/Slum, situated at Saheed Nagar in the capital city of Bhubaneswar.

A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi upheld the decision of the State government to acquire the slum for construction of large-scale apartments in order to rehabilitate the slum-dwellers in a phased manner. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court observed –

“The State has embarked upon a structured, budgeted, and meticulously conceived programme of in-situ redevelopment, aimed at transmuting vulnerable informal habitats into dignified, permanent urban housing. Where a public authority advances a lawful and transparent scheme for large-scale rehabilitation, courts have unfailingly declined invitations to convert the right to shelter into an unyielding shield against development.”

Laconically put, the petitioners contented that their families and forefathers have been residing at Shantipalli slum since decades. The State government acquired the said slum under the 'Jaga Mission' which aims to recognize, upgrade, and rehabilitate slum dwellers across the State.

They further submitted that over 400 families have been residing at the locality. Even though they admitted to have been residing over the said land without any legal right but in the same vein, submitted that the government has acknowledged their right to shelter and even established Anganwadi and schools, apart from issuing Aadhaar card and Voter ID card with such addresses.

They further alleged to have been orally instructed, through loudspeaker announcements, to vacate the slum and hand over the land, purportedly to facilitate construction of an apartment project by private builders. They also contended that even though they filed a representation dated 10.10.2017 before the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, seeking rehabilitation in accordance with the applicable government guidelines, no action is stated to have been taken by the competent authority on the said representation. Hence, they filed the writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs.

Upon hearing both the sides, the Court held that even though the petitioners have been residing over the land for a long period of time, but such long and continuous possession of public land, without vesting of title or formal recognition under the statutory framework, does not confer ownership or indefeasible right to remain in possession.

“The right to shelter under Article 21 is a right to reasonable housing and rehabilitation, not a right to trespass or continue illegal occupation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that encroachment on public land cannot be regularized merely on the grounds of long possession, and the State is under a constitutional obligation to reclaim and utilize public land for planned development as enunciated in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd, and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab,” it added.

Justice Panigrahi did not find any fault in the action of the State government, which according to him met the legal standards established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985). He further held –

“The State has conceptualized a rehabilitation scheme of substantial amplitude, constructed a significant corpus of dwelling units, effectuated large-scale allotments, provided orderly and dignified transit accommodation, and strengthened the financial footing of beneficiaries through structured bank linkages. Such endeavours not only satisfy the threshold envisioned in Olga Tellis (supra), indeed, they transcend it, exemplifying a model of governance which seems to be constitutionally scrupulous and administratively compassionate.”

So far as challenge to vacation of land through loudspeaker announcement and non-compliance of the statutory requirement under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 were concerned, the Court spurned allegations of illegality on the part of the government by observing -

“The sporadic use of loudspeakers whether to disseminate information or to caution residents cannot, by any stretch of legal imagination, eclipse the rich documentary record reflecting exhaustive surveys, verified beneficiary lists, formal allotments and the provision of dignified transit accommodation. Minor administrative blemishes, even if assumed to exist, cannot be elevated to a pedestal where they vitiate an otherwise structured, humane, and legally impeccable rehabilitation process conceived in the larger public interest.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the action of the government. In order to ensure lawful, compassionate and socially transformative housing initiative and to make the entire process transparent and democratic, the following directions were passed –

• The legality of the land transfer to the BMC/BDA and the determinations of the SLSMC including fixation of beneficiary contribution stand affirmed.
• The Court records the substantial progress already achieved in Phase-I and recognizes the pressing public interest in commencing and completing Phase-II without further obstruction.
• The petitioners shall relocate to the designated transit accommodation, equipped with minimum humane facilities, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Court.
• The BMC and BDA shall extend financial facilitation, including bank-linked credit support, to beneficiaries unable to pay the contribution upfront.
• The interim order of status quo shall stand vacated, insofar as it impedes the continuation of construction, upon the petitioners' failure to comply within the prescribed period.
• A Monitoring Committee, akin to that envisaged in Shantistar Builders (supra) shall be constituted to oversee the fairness of allotments, adequacy of transit facilities, and seamless facilitation of financial support.

Case Title: Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 12057 of 2023 and batch

Date of Judgment: November 14, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Mr. Koushik Anand Guru & Mr. M.K. Dash, Advocates

Counsel for the State: Mr. Sonak Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with associates; Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Advocate along with associates; Mr. Sanjib Swain, Mr. Niranjan Panda & Mr. Akash Acharya, Advocates

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 155

Click Here To Read/Download Order