Bhubaneswar: The Orissa high court has dismissed a plea by a group of people claiming ownership of revenue land belonging to Lord Jagannath Temple in Puri, citing decades-long possession and government-issued identity proofs. Delivering his judgement, justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi ruled that decades of residence, ration cards or voter IDs cannot ripen into ownership over temple land impressed with a public purpose.
Over a hundred families, mostly daily-wage earners, have been living for more than five decades in Cuttack which is officially part of Jagannath’s Amrutamanohi holdings.
“The land in dispute is an Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath, recorded in the name of the deity, and the petitioners are unauthorised occupants,” the court ruled while holding that the eviction of the petitioners from the same land was legal.
In Odisha’s temple administration system, Amrutamanohi land refers to agricultural or homestead plots that historically belong to Lord Jagannath of Puri and were permanently endowed to generate income for the temple’s rituals and daily maintenance. These land parcels are recorded in the deity’s name in the land revenue records and Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) Acts as custodian, but ownership is legally vested in the deity.
Petitioners Bishnu Charan Sahoo and others produced Aadhaar, voter lists dating back to 1980, ration cards and sporadic khajana pauti (property tax) receipts to claim that their habitation was settled and bona fide.
{{/usCountry}}Petitioners Bishnu Charan Sahoo and others produced Aadhaar, voter lists dating back to 1980, ration cards and sporadic khajana pauti (property tax) receipts to claim that their habitation was settled and bona fide.
{{/usCountry}}When the eviction notice arrived, the families sought regularisation, offering to buy the land under the “Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Purinka Zamee Bikri Sambandhiya Samana Niti”, a 2002-03 policy for sale of temple land. The SJTA’s chief administrator (revenue) refused, stating that the petitioners’ occupation was unauthorised and the policy was inapplicable.
The petitioners argued that half a century of uninterrupted residence coupled with state-issued identity documents amounted to legitimate possession. The locality has public infrastructure — including a government school — and eviction would uproot economically weaker families with no alternate shelter. The temple’s own policy, they contended, was framed precisely to allow settlement of long-occupied plots, and rejection “on a technical plea of unauthorised status” was arbitrary.
They further alleged “contradictory stands” by the SJTA — first claiming no application existed, later faulting the form of the representation. They also hinted at “influence of interveners” seeking to grab the land.
The State and Sri Jagannath Temple Administration termed the families “encroachers”, stressing that voter or Aadhaar entries confer no legal title. Khajana receipts, if any, cannot override statutory records showing the deity as owner. The 2002-03 Uniform Policy, they said, was never intended to legitimise encroachments but to regulate alienation of temple land where lawful or permissible possession existed. Under Section 16-A of the Jagannath Temple Act, Odisha Public Land Encroachment provisions apply to temple property exactly as to government land, empowering Tahasildars to evict unauthorised occupants.
Justice Panigrahi underlined that the land stands recorded unequivocally in the deity’s name. OPLE applies by statute; hence eviction proceedings are competent. “Documents such as Aadhaar, voter ID or electricity bills may indicate residence but do not create legal title,” the court said.
On the Uniform Policy, the bench held that petitioners failed to establish eligibility. “The policy cannot be construed as an instrument for encroachers to seek conferment of ownership. Amrutamanohi lands, being attached to the deity, cannot be alienated contrary to law,” the judgment said.