Surjit@Surajit Dash & Ors. v. Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
- Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 s. 254
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Sep-2025 16:32:23 Page 3 of 3.
Judgment
Order No. ORDER 02.09.2025
This matter taken up through hybrid arrangement.
The Petitioners, by filing this Writ Petition, have made a prayer to quash the notice dated 20.11.2024 vide notice No.4017(M) vide Annexure-5.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the residential house of the Petitioners standing over Plot No. 586/1731 and Plot No. 608, Khata No. 609 (Jalasaya), Acre
0.45 dec, Mouza- Deuligrameswar, Dist./P.S./Tahasil- Jagatsinghpur, is situated Western side of the Petitioners’ land. The land in question is recorded in the name of Government of Odisha but the same remain unused for pretty long time and was filled Page 1 of 3. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Sep-2025 16:32:23 with wild bushes. The father of the Petitioners finding the adjoining land to be fallow and unused, on 01.04.1991 occupied a portion (700 sq. ft.) of the said land and constructed a portion of his building with structures like storage, soakpit, waste water tank. He further submits that the Opposite Party No. 2 has issued a notice of demarcation relating to Plot No. 586 along with Plot No. 609, which is also adjacent to Plot No. 586. Accordingly, the demarcation was made on 27.07.2024 without any authority and it was found that the Petitioners are in possession of 700 square fit of land excess to Plot No.586. In view of such finding, apprehending forceful eviction by Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur, the Petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 378 of 2024 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagatsinghpur praying for a decree of right, title, interest with other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, I.A. No. 235 of 2024 was filed for injunction, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The Trial Court issued notice to the Opposite Parties seeking appearance and response. After the issuance of notice in the I.A., the Petitioners were served with a notice of eviction/demolition purported to have been issued under Section 254 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 vide Notice No. 4017(M) directing the Petitioners to vacate the land in question, i.e. 700 sq. links. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Sep-2025 16:32:23 Page 2 of 3.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 submits that a Civil Suit bearing C.S. No.378 of 2024 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagatsinghpur for adjudication.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court directs the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagatsinghpur to dispose of the C.S. No.378 of 2024 within a period of three months from today.
The Petitioners are granted liberty application for injunction to protect their land from any encroachment within a period of two weeks. Till disposal of the application for injunction to be filed by the Petitioners, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners.
Operative part
The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Sep-2025 16:32:23 Page 3 of 3.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2; Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 — s. 254.
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.