Introduction:

In the case of Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 15095 of 2024 & batch], decided on August 19, 2025, the Orissa High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning the protection of Amrutamanohi lands belonging to Lord Jagannath. A single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi categorically held that such lands cannot be settled in favour of encroachers merely because they have been in possession for several decades and hold government-issued identity proofs linked to the disputed property. The petitioners, who are labourers, had challenged eviction notices issued under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act) and also sought settlement of the land in their favour under the Uniform Policy framed by the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. The Court, however, dismissed their plea, observing that possession, voter IDs, Aadhaar, ration cards, and electricity bills cannot substitute for legal ownership or authority, particularly when the land belongs to a deity and is impressed with public trust.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, who had been residing with their families on the disputed land for over fifty years, argued that their possession had ripened into a right for settlement under the Uniform Policy of 2002–03 framed by the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. They claimed to have constructed homes and paid property tax while also holding government-issued documents such as voter ID cards, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and electricity bills reflecting the address of the land in question. They contended that such long-standing possession could not be brushed aside as mere encroachment, particularly since they were willing to purchase the land at a cost determined by the temple administration. They further argued that the eviction proceedings initiated under the OPLE Act, 1972 were not valid because the land did not belong to the government but to Lord Jagannath, a juristic deity. On that basis, they submitted that the Tahasildar lacked jurisdiction to issue eviction notices and that their representation seeking settlement should have been considered sympathetically given their socio-economic background as poor labourers. They also argued that denying settlement of land violated the spirit of fairness and equity, as the Uniform Policy was intended to regularise long-standing occupation of lands linked with the temple wherever possible.

Arguments of the Respondents:

On the other hand, the State of Odisha and the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration contended that the petitioners were nothing but encroachers with no legal authority to occupy the Amrutamanohi land, which is specifically dedicated to the service of Lord Jagannath. The respondents argued that the land stood recorded in the name of “Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri,” and therefore, under Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, the provisions of the OPLE Act applied to the temple’s land as though it were government property. This gave the Additional Tahasildar full authority to initiate eviction proceedings. They also submitted that the Uniform Policy of 2002–03 could not be invoked by the petitioners since they failed to meet the eligibility conditions, and most importantly, the policy itself did not extend to Amrutamanohi lands, which have a unique religious and public character. The respondents highlighted that identity documents and proof of residence do not create ownership rights and that mere length of possession cannot override the legal sanctity of temple property. Allowing settlement in such cases, they argued, would encourage large-scale encroachment upon religious endowments, undermining the protection guaranteed under law. The eviction proceedings, according to the respondents, were thus perfectly valid and in accordance with statutory provisions.

Judgment of the Court:

After hearing both sides, Justice Panigrahi framed the central issue: whether long-standing possession of over fifty years, along with supporting identity documents, could entitle the petitioners to settlement of Amrutamanohi land under the Uniform Policy, or whether their occupation amounted to encroachment warranting eviction under the OPLE Act. The Court answered unequivocally in favour of the latter. It observed that the disputed land was indeed recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath as Amrutamanohi property, and under Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, any unauthorised occupation of temple land is subject to the provisions of the OPLE Act as though it were government land. This meant that the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, had full jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings. The Court rejected the plea that identity documents such as Aadhaar, ration card, voter ID, or electricity bills could confer ownership, holding that such documents merely prove residence but cannot convert unauthorised possession into legal title. It went on to observe that Amrutamanohi lands hold a special character, being dedicated to the deity and intended for the performance of religious purposes, and therefore cannot be alienated or settled in favour of encroachers contrary to law.

Regarding the Uniform Policy of 2002–03, the Court noted that the petitioners had failed to establish compliance with its conditions. More importantly, the Court clarified that the policy could not be read as a tool for granting ownership to illegal encroachers of temple property. The very object of the policy was to regularise long-standing lawful or otherwise permissible occupation, not to legitimise encroachments on lands belonging to Lord Jagannath. Therefore, the petitioners’ reliance on the policy was misconceived. The Court emphasised that property belonging to a deity is trust property impressed with public character and requires protection from encroachments in the larger interest of the temple and the public at large. To hold otherwise, it reasoned, would set a dangerous precedent encouraging further illegal occupation of temple lands.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding both the eviction order issued by the Additional Tahasildar and the rejection of the petitioners’ representation for settlement. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that temple lands, particularly Amrutamanohi lands of Lord Jagannath, cannot be alienated to private parties on the basis of long possession or identity documents. It thus struck a balance between statutory protection of temple property and the necessity to curb encroachments, ensuring that the sanctity of religious endowments remains intact.