Orissa High Court
WP(C)/17457/2026 of PARAMJEET SINGH @ P. SING Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 5 June 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17457 of 2026 Paramjeet Singh @ P. Sing …. Petitioner Mr. Satrughna Dash ( A ), Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Chandrakanta Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17457 of 2026
Paramjeet Singh @ P. Sing
….
Petitioner
Mr. Satrughna Dash (A), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
another
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Chandrakanta Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
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
05.06.2026
1.
1. The matter is taken up through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner before this Court is inhabitant of Joda in the district of Keonjhar. He is before this Court challenging the notice annexed to the writ application marked as Annexure-1 dated 22.05.2026 intimating the petitioner to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for encroachment under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, Sections 4 and 6 with regard to khasada no.115, plot no.77/860, kisam- Nayanjori, total area of Ac. 1.3000 decimals out of which under encroachment is Ac.0.004.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority issuing notice does not have the competence to issue such notice as the area encroached comes within the municipal area of Joda.
4. On being asked, whether the petitioner relies upon any document to show the details of land which will indicate that the authority does not have jurisdiction, in response, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not have the record of right of the area to show that the area does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar.
On being further asked, whether the petitioner has approached the Tahasildar in response to the notice and filed any reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that given some time he will file the reply before the Tahasildar.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate upon advance copy served appears and waives notice on behalf of the opposite parties. He submits that if the petitioner files any reply, the same shall be considered by the authority in accordance with law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall file his reply before the authority by 18.06.2026.
The authority shall do well to consider the same and take a decision thereafter.
7. It is further directed that status quo as on date regarding the nature, character, ownership and possession of the properties shall be maintained till 03.07.2026 by the parties.
8. It is further directed if the Petitioner does not file his reply before the authority by 18.06.2026 this order shall have no effect.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Vacation Judge
Gs Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 08-Jun-2026 12:09:49 Signature Not Verified