The Orissa High Court has reiterated that “Amrutamanohi” land belonging to Lord Jagannath cannot be settled in favour of encroachers merely because they have resided there for decades or hold government-issued identity documents showing the disputed address.

Dismissing multiple writ petitions, a single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ruled that long occupation and possession of Aadhaar, voter ID, ration card or electricity bills “may at best prove residence but do not confer legal title or authorised possession.”

The petitions challenged an eviction notice issued on January 12, 2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, alleging unauthorised occupation of Jagannath temple land. The petitioners, daily wage labourers, claimed they had lived there for over fifty years and had even sought to purchase the land under the Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Purinka Zamee Bikri Sambandhiya Samana Niti (Uniform Policy). Their requests, however, were rejected on grounds that the Uniform Policy does not extend to encroached “Amrutamanohi” land.

The petitioners argued that since the land belonged to the deity and not the government, eviction under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act) was invalid. They also contended that long-standing residence coupled with payment of property tax gave them a right to settlement.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that under Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, OPLE Act provisions apply to unauthorised occupation of temple property as if it were government land. Thus, the Tahasildar was competent to issue eviction orders. It further clarified that the Uniform Policy was never intended to legitimise encroachments on lands dedicated to a deity, as such lands are impressed with a public and religious purpose and cannot be alienated.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the eviction proceedings and rejection of representations.

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 Petitioners: Dr. Binod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Subrat Satapathy & Mr. K.K. Bhuyan