Kaibarta Pradhan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Mr. Arjun Charan Behera, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 24.07.2026
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being an encroacher, has challenged the eviction notice under Annexure-2 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/Tahasildar, Ambabhona.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State submits that there is a clear statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act against the impugned notice under Annexure-2. Hence, the Petitioner should approach the Appellate Authority.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the OPLE Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. However, this Court permits the Petitioner to file an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, so also a petition for interim protection before the Appellate Authority/Sub-Collector, Bargarh as per Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act, within a period of fifteen working days hence. In such event, the Appellate Authority shall conclude the hearing within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal.
This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
1. Murmu ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.