Courts cannot protect encroachments on public roads, irrespective of claims under housing schemes.

The petitioner claimed that his slum dwelling at Mahisakhal, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, was demolished by the municipal authorities for road construction.

He was subsequently identified for settlement under the Rajiv Awas Yojana (“RAY”) and deposited ₹1,20,000 as beneficiary contribution, but was not allotted a flat.

In an earlier proceeding, W.P.(C) No. 25539 of 2023, the High Court held that RAY was no longer available, directed refund of the contribution upon request, and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s case under the Jaga Mission scheme.

The petitioner alleged that, as no plot had been allotted, he constructed a temporary hut on government land beside Mahishakhal Road and apprehended its demolition.

The municipal authorities disputed that he had been evicted as a land oustee, denied receipt of any verifiable application under the Jaga Mission, and stated that any structure obstructing a public road would be liable to demolition.

The petition was filed under Article 227 seeking allotment of a plot under the Jaga Mission or protection against demolition until allotment.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for allotment of a plot under the Jaga Mission scheme in the absence of a demonstrated application, eligibility, or entitlement under the scheme.

2. Whether the petitioner could claim protection against demolition of a temporary structure allegedly erected on land meant for a public road.

3. Whether the municipal authorities could remove an encroachment obstructing public movement after following the applicable legal procedure.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution but declined to protect an alleged encroachment on public-road land.

It applied the principle that entitlement under a welfare scheme such as the Jaga Mission depends upon an application, eligibility, and consideration by the competent authority; a previous direction to “consider” a claim does not itself create a right to allotment.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Kamala Singh v. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 15942 of 2024, order dated 12 May 2025, for the principle that, once a lawful eviction order attains finality, the authority may take statutory measures—and, where necessary, police assistance—to remove encroachers and structures.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Fundamental Right to Walk and Foot Path v. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, W.P.(C) No. 844 of 2026, requiring properly demarcated, encroachment-free footpaths and pedestrian spaces.

A local Corporator has no legal authority to permit encroachment on a public road.

The Court found that the earlier judgment had not directed allotment of a plot; it had only required the authorities to examine whether the petitioner could be considered under the Jaga Mission, while also recognizing that he was not entitled to a RAY flat.

The petitioner neither impleaded the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, which had been a party to the earlier proceeding, nor produced a copy or acknowledged receipt of any application or representation seeking allotment under the Jaga Mission.

Consequently, no enforceable right to allotment was established.

Further, the alleged hut was stated to be on government land earmarked for or obstructing a public road.

In light of the public’s right to unobstructed pedestrian movement, the Court held that equitable protection could not be granted merely because the petitioner was economically vulnerable or had relied on a Corporator’s alleged permission.

The absence of proof that the specific structure was covered by a demolition notice also did not justify granting the broad relief sought.

The Court refused to direct allotment of a Jaga Mission plot and declined to restrain the authorities from removing an alleged road encroachment.

It left it open to the petitioner to submit an application to the competent authorities for consideration under the Jaga Mission scheme, subject to his eligibility.