Orissa High Court
WP(C)/19047/2026 of HIMANSHU NAYAK Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 13 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19047 OF 2026 Himanshu Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. Bishnu Charan Sahu, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mrs. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE MRUGANKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19047 OF 2026
Himanshu Nayak
….
Petitioner
Mr. Bishnu Charan Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties
Mrs. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
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
Order No. 13.07.2026
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to settle Plot No.2234 under Khata No.1182 to an extent area Ac.0.05 decimal out of Ac.0.200 decimal land (Kisam-Gochar) situated at Mauza Sanakrushnapur, under Basudevpur, Tahasil in the district of Bhadrak (for brevity ‘the Case Land’)
3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case land along with some other properties are being occupied by the family of the Petitioner since time immemorial. The Petitioner being a landless person has made an application for settlement of the case land in his name. During pendency of such application, notice of eviction dated 24th March, 2026 in L.E. Case No.729 of 2025-26 under Annexure-6 has been issued.
4. It is further submitted that since the Petitioner is a landless person the land encroached upon by him and his family members should be settled in their name under Basundhara scheme. Digitally Signed Signed by: SASHIKANT PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Jul-2026 10:28:40 Signature Not Verified
5. Mrs. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on instruction, submits that the Petitioner has already been settled with three decimals of land. The Petitioner and his family members have Ac.0.32 decimals of land in their name. Further, the land encroached upon by the Petitioner is kept under ‘Rakhit’ Khata, which is ‘Gochar’ in nature. As such, the same cannot be settled in the name of the Petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials on record. It appears that the Petitioner has made an application for settlement of the case land in respect of which, eviction order has already been passed in L.E. Case No. 729 of 2025-26 and notice of eviction in Form- ‘Kha’ has already been issued on 24th March, 2026 (Annexure-6). Said order of eviction is apparently not challenged in appeal.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner that no application under Section 8-A of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 was filed during pendency of L.E. Case No.729 of 2025-26 for settlement of the land. Thus, there is no scope to settle the case land in favour of the Petitioner.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly the same is dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(M.S Sahoo)
Judge Sashikant Digitally Signed Signed by: SASHIKANT PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Jul-2026 10:28:40 Signature Not Verified