Orissa high court upholds Hingula temple project evictions, dismisses land occupier's plea

Cuttack: Orissa high court has upheld eviction notices issued in connection with the Hingula temple peripheral development project in Talcher, dismissing a petition filed by an elderly resident of Gopalprasad village and holding that no illegality or constitutional infirmity was involved in the process.

A bench of Justice S K Panigrahi observed that mere possession of identity documents showing residence does not confer any legal right or adverse title over public land, particularly when such land is required for a legitimate public purpose. In his Jan 22 judgment, Justice Panigrahi reiterated that passage of time or long occupation, unsupported by documentary title, cannot defeat the rights of the true owner.


The petitioner had challenged eviction notices issued in Oct and Dec 2024, claiming that he could not be dispossessed without being provided rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. He alleged violation of his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that he was landless, economically weak and had been residing on the land for generations.

However, the court noted that the land forms part of the Hingula open cast project of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) and had been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act through notifications issued between 1994 and 1997. Possession was taken over by MCL in 1999, upon which all private rights on the land stood extinguished.

Justice Panigrahi recorded that the petitioner had no recorded title or tenancy in revenue or temple records and did not dispute that the land belonged to the govt or MCL. His claim of residence for three generations was found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence.

On the issue of rehabilitation, the court acknowledged the existence of resettlement policies for displaced families but held that the petitioner was never identified as a project-affected person at the time of acquisition and therefore could not claim benefits meant for recognised land losers.

While expressing sympathy for the petitioner’s economic condition, the bench clarified that Article 21 does not grant encroachers a perpetual right to occupy public land. The writ petition and all four similar petitions were accordingly dismissed.