WA/1130/2024 of PRASANTA KUMAR PADHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026 Order No.

02. W.A. No.1130 of 2024 & I.A. No.2948 of 2024

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. This intra-Court Appeal has been filed with the following prayer:

“Therefore, the appellant most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Respondents, call for the records of the writ petition and after hearing the parties allow the appeal by setting- aside the impugned orderdtd.15.03.2024 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 26169/2023 and further be pleased to held the partial demolition of the house of the appellant standing over Plot No. 1600 corresponding M.S. Plot No.

during pendency of the

Encroachment Proceeding Case No.

without following due procedure of law and principles of Natural Justice; And further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay adequate compensation for partial demolition house of the appellant and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the said property.”

3. There is a delay of three days in filing the Writ Appeal for which I.A. No.2948 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay.

4. The Appellant appears in person from the Virtual Court Cabin of Virtual High Court, Sambalpur.

5. Upon hearing Mr. Padhi, the Appellant in person, we thought it proper to peruse the record as his submission is not clear. Order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.26169 of 2023 reads as under: “1. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since the matter is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 35296 of 2023, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly and in terms thereof.”

6. We, thus, perused the order passed in W.P.(C) No.35296 of 2023 and batch of Writ Petitions, which is also annexed to the Writ Appeal (Annexure-20). The batch of Writ Petitions involving similar issues were disposed of by a common order with the following directions: “8. With the above conclusion, the Court, being aware of the settled legal position that Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that no one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law and the dictum of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 which expanded the scope of procedure established by law by a ruling that such procedure has to be fair, just and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary thereby introducing the principle of procedural due process and keeping in view the significance of it and the fact that impugned action against the petitioners is certainly to affect their right to livelihood which is an integral part of right to life as highlighted upon in Olga Tellis and others Vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others 1985 SCC(3) 545 and the moral code of conduct which emanates from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and since some of the aspects are to be taken care of before the demolition drive, considers it apposite to impart the following directions, such as: (i) irrespective of the earlier notice, the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation shall issue notice in the manner prescribed under law leaving the petitioners a clear 15 (fifteen) days time to respond; (ii) within the above stipulated period, the petitioners shall avail all such remedy as available to them under law in order to safeguard their individual interest and may even approach the authority having issued the notice with presentable and satisfactory explanations against demolition;(iii) the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation taking cognizance of any such explanations, on expiry of the notice period, shall proceed in accordance with law; and (iv) above all, the entire exercise shall be undertaken keeping in view the spirit of the law. 9. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed with the directions as aforesaid.”

7. Thus, we find that the order impugned herein has been passed in favour of the Appellant, who was the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26169 of 2023.

8. It is of course submitted by Mr. Padhi, the

Amit/Rajesh Appellant that without complying with the direction as quoted above, the authorities of Sambalpur Municipal Corporation demolished his residence partly.

9. In view of the above, we find that the Appellant is aggrieved by the action of the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation, which is allegedly in violation of the direction of this Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

10. Hence, the Writ Appeal and Interim Application are disposed of with an observation that the Appellant, if so advised, may avail remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Sep-2026 10:18:35 Signature Not Verified