Cuttack: Expressing deep concern over the bulldozing of a community hall by an officer of tehsildar rank, the Orissa High Court Wednesday ordered the state government to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to the petitioners. In a sharply worded judgment, Justice SK Panigrahi observed that “in a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.” “The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern, commonly referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’, where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one,” the single-judge bench observed. The judge warned that such actions, if left unchecked, could set a dangerous precedent, where field-level officers entrusted with significant statutory powers begin to treat judicial timelines as administrative gaps to be tactically exploited. Holding the demolition to be unlawful, the court awarded Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the petitioners. Of this, Rs 2 lakh is to be recovered from the tehsildar concerned, in instalments from his salary, due to his direct involvement in the misconduct. The remaining Rs 8 lakh is to be paid by the State within eight weeks of the order’s presentation. The case pertains to a community hall built on grazing land in Balasore, partly funded by government schemes and used by the public.
Also Read: Bank defaulter to walk free as Orissa High Court sets two-month cleaning condition for his bail
On December 14, 2024, the hall was demolished by local authorities just a day after the High Court issued a stay order, making the action illegal. The authorities provided no emergency justification for its action. “The office of the tehsildar is not a mere administrative post—it is a constitutional responsibility, especially in matters involving enforcement at the grassroots level,” the court observed and directed the initiation of departmental proceedings against the revenue officer.
