Stay of Construction :

1[The Tahasildar] may, if he has reasons to believe that any person unauthorisedly occupying any land is constructing or is about to construct any building or other structure thereon, by order, prohibit such person from proceeding with the construction or as the case may be, from constructing such building or structure

2[***] and if such person fails to comply with the said order,

¹ Substituted by Act 4 of 1975.

1[the Tahasildar] may impose a fine which may extend to fifty rupees and a daily fine of rupees ten for everyday during which such 2.Words "during the pendency of any proceeding under this Act "deleted by Act, 13 of 1982.

noncompliance continues

1[and may also issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance may send him with a warrant in the form appended to Schedule I for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for a period not exceeding thirty days as may be necessary to prevent the person from proceeding with the construction].

2[8-A. Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years :– (1) Where in the course of any proceeding instituted under Secs. 4, 6, 7 or 8 against any person unauthorisedly occupying any land it is proved by such person that he has been in actual, continuous and undisputed occupation of the land for more than thirty years by the date of institution of the proceeding, the Tahasildar shall refer the case to the Sub-divisional Officer.

1. (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-Sec. (1) the Sub-divisional Officer shall given the Department of the State Government (other than the Revenue Department) to which the land belongs, an opportunity to show cause against the settlement of the land may make such further enquiry as he deems necessary.
2. (3) If after making such enquiry the Sub-divisional Officer is satisfied that such person has been in such occupation of the land as aforesaid, he may by order, settle the land with him and every such settlement shall be subject to such conditions, regarding assessment and payment of rent (including arrears of rent) as may be prescribed by rules under this Act.] NOTES Claim of adverse possession over the Government land cannot be decided in a writ petition. In eviction proceedings Tahasildar directing the petitioner to deposit penalty and assessment amount and the same was paid by the petitioner, cannot be challenged as the same attained its finality 106 (2008) CLT 21 : 2008 (1) CLR 864 : 2008 (Supp.1) OLR 938 (Silu Ekha vs. State of Orissa) A person occupying the land for more than 30 years by the date of institution of the encroachment proceedings....The Tahasildar is to refer the case to the Sub Divisional Officer. The matter was decided by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner as he was found to be in possession of the disputed plot for more than 30 years acquiring the right, title by way of adverse possession. The matter was finally decided by the High Court in favour of the petitioner holding his/ her title to the land. But at the instance of Opp. Party No.5 who had no Locus Standi in the matter as agitated before the appellate authority challenging the 1.Added by Act 4 of 1975. order passed by tahasildar dropping the second encroachment proceeding against the petitioner. The S.D.O also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter matter was carried in revision before the Additional District Magistrate Chatrapur who also directed to Tahasildar to do needful in accordance with the observation and direction of the Civil Court and as such tahasildar recommended for settlement of land in favour of the petitioner.... As the matter stood so the Opp. Party No.5 who had lost at all stages carried the matter in second revision before the R.D.C who surprisingly held that the petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 are directed to be evicted held that order is not sustainable in view of clear finding of the Civil Court which has been confirmed by this Court: 93
3. (2002) CLT 119: A 2002 Orissa 147 (Smt. Labonga Lata Panda vs. State of Orissa and Others) Tahasildar is not competent to decide the question of adverse possession: 59(1985) CLT 1 (Rev.) Settlement of land show cause by the Government department not necessary: AIR (1993) Orissa 77. Read with Rule 16 of OPLE Rules - Provisions Make clear that settlement under those provisions shall be made in favour of the encroacher who is in actual, continuous and undisputed occupation of the law far more than 30 years, by the time and date of institution of a proceeding against him. The land in dispute has been occupied and encroached by two persons settlement in favour of only one is illegal – 2010 (2) OJR 348 (Chandrasekhar Prasad Sharma Vrs RDC & another.) taking proceedings under 1[Sec. 4], Sec. 6 or Sec. 7 2[the Tahasildar] shall cause to be served on the person reported to be in unauthorised occupation of the property of Government, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling him to show cause before a certain date as to why he should not be proceeded against under 3[Sec. 4], Sec. 6 or Sec. 7. Such notice shall be served in such manner as the Government may, by rules or orders under Sec. 10 direct. NOTES (i)A notice under Sec. 9 calling upon the person in occupation to show cause why he should not be proceeded under Sec. 6 or 7 of the Act does not give rise to a cause of action : 30 MLJ 255: AIR 1924 Mad. 825 : AIR 1925 Madras 415. 3.Added by Act 13 of 1982. (ii)But where such notice did not take effect because the authorities on representation by the landlady recognised her right to possession, the tenant is estopped from pleading justice in a third person : AIR 1956 An. W.R. 1090.

² Inserted by ibid.

⁹ Prior notice to person in unauthorised occupation :– Before

¹ Inserted by Act 4 of 1975.

² Substituted by Act 4 of 1975.

³ Inserted by Act 13 of 1982.

¹ Inserted by ibid.

² Substituted by Act 4 of 1975.

⁴ Substituted by Act ibid for the words "Board of Revenue".