Orissa High Court
WP(C)/28913/2026 of SURESH CHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 9 September 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28913 of 2026 [CNR No.ODHC010677262026] Suresh Chandra Choudhury …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28913 of 2026
[CNR No.ODHC010677262026]
Suresh Chandra
Choudhury
….
Petitioner(s)
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
….
Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No.
01.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
09.09.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, Suresh Chandra Choudhury has challenged the action of the Opposite Parties in issuing Form-Kha dated 28.07.2026 under Annexure-3 to evict the Petitioner from Plot No.1272 corresponding to Khata No.178/1223 of Mouza- Ladugaon, Tahasil- Koksara, District- Kalahandi as the same is illegal. Apart from the above, he has also prayed for a direction for correction of the RoR in his name within a stipulated time.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
4. Having regard to the nature of the challenge made in the present Writ Petition, this Court finds that the impugned eviction notice dated 28.07.2026 issued by the Tahasildar, Koksara (Opposite Party No.3) under the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short, “the OPLE Act”) is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 12(1) of the said Act. Under the said provision, an appeal against any decision or order made by the Tahasildar lies before the Sub-Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector.
5. In view of the availability of the efficacious statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the challenge to the impugned notice/order at this stage. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the concerned Sub-Collector, under Section 12(1) of the OPLE Act within a period of fifteen days from today.
6. In the event the Petitioner files such appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, so also a petition for interim protection within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall entertain the same in accordance with law. The appellate authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order.
7. It is further directed that till the interim application to be filed by the Petitioner is taken up, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner in respect of the case above mentioned case land, provided the Petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within the period stipulated herein.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the statutory appellate authority in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
11. Web copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as an authenticated copy.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge
Sipun