High court sets aside RDA notice directing removal of ‘encroachment’ on govt land

Cuttack: The Orissa high court has set aside a notice issued by the Rourkela Development Authority (RDA) directing removal of alleged encroachment on a govt land, holding that the authority acted “without jurisdiction” and in a “colourable exercise of power.

”Justice S K Panigrahi, while hearing a petition filed by a private association in possession of the land, said the RDA’s initiation of proceedings under Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities (ODA) Act, 1982 - while the petitioner’s lease proposal was already pending before the Sundargarh collector- amounted to “administrative incongruity.”In the Oct 31 order, Justice Panigrahi underscored the distinction between the powers of the RDA and those of the collector and revenue authorities, observing, “These statutory domains, though intersecting in object, are distinct in scope and competence.”Holding the RDA’s action as arbitrary, Justice Panigrahi said, “The impugned notice bears no indication of application of mind to the pending lease proceedings or the petitioner’s compliance under the OPLE (Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment), Act, 1972.”The petitioner had challenged the RDA’s show-cause notice, dated Sept 21, 2017, and directed the collector to take a decision on the lease or NOC in line with the 2015 govt resolution.

The resolution mandates that upon receipt of police verification, “the collector shall consider the matter and take further action regarding sanction or allotment of lease.”Justice Panigrahi observed that the RDA should have awaited the outcome of the collector’s proceedings under the OPLE Act, 1972, and the govt resolution, dated April 24, 2015. “Such exercise, though cloaked in legality, offends the doctrine of institutional discipline and manifests a colourable exercise of power,” the judge noted.“In view of the foregoing analysis, this court is constrained to hold that the impugned show-cause notice, dated 21/ 09/ 2017, issued under Section 91 of the ODA Act, is without jurisdiction, procedurally defective and constitutionally infirm,” Justice Panigrahi ruled.Accordingly, Justice Panigrahi quashed the notice and directed the collector, Sundargarh, to decide the petitioner’s lease proposal “strictly in accordance with the govt resolution dated 24/04/2015” within three months.Counsel for the petitioner-association argued that the association had already submitted a detailed representation to the collector on May 26, 2015, seeking regularisation of the land not merely for possession but for “long-standing socio-cultural and public welfare objectives.” The counsel further said the petitioner had paid rent and penalties under the OPLE Act and remained in lawful possession, making the RDA’s fresh proceeding “jurisdictionally untenable” and akin to double jeopardy.