'Troubling Pattern Of Bulldozer Justice': Orissa High Court Orders Recovery Of ₹2 Lakh From Salary Of Tahasildar For Illegal Demolition

In a strong judicial retaliation against unlawful 'bulldozer action', the Orissa High Court has ordered the State to pay rupees ten lakhs compensation, out of which rupees two lakhs are to be recovered from the salary of the concerned Tahasildar, for illegally demolishing a structure belonging to a community centre.Reprimanding the executive excess in clear derogation of judicial orders, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi gave flea in the ear of the Tahasildar through the following observation –“This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Tahasildar, whose actions in this case reflect a steady and conscious departure from the standards expected of a responsible public officer. When judicial directions were first issued, there was an opportunity to act with restraint and deference to the process of law… It was a deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was still underway.”BackgroundA 'goshtigruha'/community centre existed on land classified as 'gochar' (grazing land) which falls under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act). The structure purportedly existed in some form or other since 1985, repaired after the super cyclone in 1999, and was reconstructed in 2016-18 using public funds sanctioned under the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.The said building had been in continuous use for public welfare programs. It is alleged that though the land was classified as 'gochar', the authorities never objected to the construction or existence of gosthigruha. Even the villagers were willing to exchange some homestead land in lieu of the gochar land used for the centre.While the matter stood thus, an encroachment proceeding was initiated in July 2024 under the OPLE Act and notices were issued. The petitioners challenged the said proceedings by filing a writ petition before the High Court. However, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioners to file an application for settlement under Section 8A of the OPLE Act instead. Accordingly, the petitioners complied with the direction of the Court by filing the relevant application, which was rejected citing lack of documentary proof of continuous possession, inauthenticity of resolutions, non-compoundability of the land category, and absence of registration. They challenged such rejection before the Appellate Authority-cum-the Sub-Collector.On 29.11.2024, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to abstain from eviction during the pendency of the appeal. Despite the order, a new eviction notice was issued on 05.12.2024. The same was challenged again before the High Court and on 13.12.2024, High Court reiterated its stance, restraining eviction during the pendency of the appeals.On the same day, i.e. 13.12.2024, the Sub-Collector concluded the hearing and reserved orders in the appeal around 4 PM. Surprisingly, at approximately 5.15 PM, a demolition notice was affixed, indicating that the structure would be demolished the next morning. On 14.12.2024 at 10:00 AM, the structure was demolished, allegedly without affording the petitioners adequate time to challenge the order or vacate the premises. Hence, this writ petition along with a contempt petition was filed.Deep disregard for constitutional processAfter perusing the incontrovertible facts, the Court opined that the action of the executive is not merely a breach of procedural safeguards, but it reflected a deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision and when final order was yet to be pronounced.“This sequence of events raises not just concerns of administrative lapse, but of deeper institutional failure. An act as final and irreversible as demolition was carried out despite two standing judicial directions, and without even the most basic procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” it said.The Bench further observed that when the State proceeds to demolish a structure knowing well that a judicial or quasi-judicial body is seized of the matter, it raises a serious concern. What is even more troubling, the Court said, is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human.“This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat,” it added.The judgments of the Supreme Court in N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1994) were cited to solidify the legal position that the protection of right to property under Article 300-A is not merely procedural but substantive in nature. “What is at...

'Troubling Pattern Of Bulldozer Justice': Orissa High Court Orders Recovery Of ₹2 Lakh From Salary Of Tahasildar For Illegal Demolition

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

'Troubling Pattern Of Bulldozer Justice': Orissa High Court Orders Recovery Of ₹2 Lakh From Salary Of Tahasildar For Illegal Demolition

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers