Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30449 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Pitambar Swain …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Adv. Smt. Sarita Maharana, ASC Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P.5) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-19.08.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Revision No.07/2024, whereby the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Sub- Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE(A) No.33/2024 was set aside, and the Tahasildar, Bonth was directed to evict the Petitioner from the case land forthwith. Page 1 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 2. The Petitioner further challenges the very initiation of the encroachment proceeding on the ground that the Petitioner has lawfully purchased the suit schedule property and has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the said property, which is presently pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) By virtue of Registered Sale Deed No. 4233 dated 02.09.1953, certain shop rooms were purchased by one Dayanidhi Dash from Mulchand Singh. (ii) Thereafter, the Petitioner along with his brothers purchased the said shop rooms from Dayanidhi Dash by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No. 2662 dated 20.07.1984. (iii) Since the purchase in 1984, the Petitioner has been carrying on a grocery business over Plot No. 2085 and has repaired the shop rooms, including casting of roof, for the purpose of running the said shop. The Petitioner has been maintaining his livelihood from the grocery business conducted therein. (iv) On 03.07.2023, the Tahasildar, Bonth initiated Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23 against the Petitioner and issued Form “Ka” in the name of the Petitioner. On the very same date, the Tahasildar also issued Form “Kha” in the said case, directing removal of the alleged encroachment over Plot No. 2085 measuring 30 ft. (cid:215) 15 ft. The Petitioner submitted a reply before the Tahasildar on the next date. (v) The Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 1059/2023 (I) before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak in respect of the suit plots, Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession in the event of dispossession during pendency of the suit, and permanent injunction restraining interference with his possession. The said suit is pending adjudication. In the said suit, the Petitioner also filed I.A. No. 487/2023 praying for an order restraining the opposite parties from entering into the suit land and disturbing his peaceful possession, in which notice has been issued by the Court below. (vi) While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner came to know that one
Legal Reasoning
Debendra Kumar Senapati had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2277 of 2023 seeking a direction to evict the Petitioner from the suit
Decision
land. This Court, by order dated 13.03.2023, disposed of the said Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner therein to file a fresh representation within a fortnight and directed the Tahasildar, Bonth to consider the same and pass necessary orders within four weeks thereafter. (vii) Pursuant to the liberty granted, the Tahasildar, Bonth passed an order on 24.04.2023 rejecting the representation of Debendra Kumar Senapati. In the said order, it was observed that the said person has a road measuring 20 ft. (cid:215) 10 ft. to his plot and that the house referred to by him is an abandoned thatched structure. (viii) Thereafter, Debendra Kumar Senapati filed W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023 before this Court seeking a direction to Opposite Party No. 3 to take appropriate steps for demolition/eviction of the alleged encroachment from the Government land and to ensure his entry to the house by quashing the order dated 24.04.2023. This Court, by order dated Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 03.08.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Tahasildar, Bonth to ensure removal of the encroachment from Plot No. 2085 as soon as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (ix) The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 19030 of 2023 seeking recall/modification of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023 on the ground that the said order had been passed without hearing the Petitioner, though the Petitioner was directly affected. In the said interlocutory application, the Petitioner set out the facts relating to his purchase and the pending civil suit. (x) The Petitioner also preferred an appeal against the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Bonth directing eviction and issuance of Form “Kha” in Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23. The said appeal was registered as OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023. In the said appeal, notice was issued and the Lower Court Records were called for by order dated 10.11.2023, and the hearing was fixed on 26.12.2023. (xi) During pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 35630 of 2023, which was subsequently withdrawn on 06.11.2023. (xii) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 39384 of 2023 challenging the initiation of Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23 and the action of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in not granting protection in OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.12.2023 directing Opposite Party No. 3 to ensure early disposal of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 within three weeks, and until such disposal, the operation of this Court’s earlier order dated 03.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023 was directed to remain Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 deferred. It was further directed that while disposing of the appeal, reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to the caveator. (xiii) During pendency of the appeal, Opposite Party No. 5 filed W.P.(C) No. 9170 of 2024 seeking a direction to Opposite Party No. 3 to take appropriate steps pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 11.07.2024 noting that OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 had already been disposed of on 28.02.2024. (xiv) The Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, after hearing all parties, disposed of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 by order dated 28.02.2024, observing therein that without going into the merits of the case, the appeal shall be kept in abeyance till the pronouncement of the final verdict in Civil Suit No. 1059 of 2023 (I) pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhadrak, which shall be binding on the parties. (xv) Against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023, Opposite Party No. 5 preferred a revision before the Collector, Bhadrak, which was registered as OPLE Revision No. 07 of 2024. (xvi) The said revision was disposed of by the Collector, Bhadrak by order dated 08.11.2024, whereby the revision was allowed, the order dated 28.02.2024 of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak was set aside, and the Tahasildar, Bonth was directed to evict the Petitioner from the case land forthwith. (xvii) Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court seeking appropriate relief. Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that he has preferred Civil Suit No. 1059 of 2023 (I) before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak in respect of the suit plots, seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession in the event of dispossession during pendency of the suit, and permanent injunction restraining interference with his peaceful possession. The Petitioner further submits that in the said suit, he has also filed I.A. No. 487 of 2023 praying for an order for restraining the opposite parties from entering into the suit land and from disturbing his possession, wherein notice has been issued by the Court below. (ii) The Petitioner contended that although this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2277 of 2023 had only directed for consideration of a representation, and the Tahasildar by order dated 24.04.2023 had already found that Opposite Party No. 5 had road access to his plot and that the alleged house was an abandoned thatched structure, Opposite Party No. 5 again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023. The Petitioner submitted that despite such findings, this Court, by order dated 03.08.2023, directed for removal of the alleged encroachment, which directly affects the Petitioner without him being heard. The Petitioner asserted that he was, therefore, constrained to file I.A. No. 19030 of 2023 seeking recall and modification of the order dated 03.08.2023, placing all relevant facts including his purchase of the land and the pendency of the civil suit. Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 (iii) The Petitioner submitted that the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Bonth itself records that Opposite Party No. 5 has also encroached on Government land (Purta Bibhag) by using an ingress and egress of about 20 ft. (cid:215) 10 ft. area to reach to his own land (Plot No. 2083), and that his house is nothing but an abandoned thatched structure. The Petitioner contended that Opposite Party No. 5 seeks to widen the approach road over Purta Bibhag land (PWD land) and has falsely alleged obstruction by the Petitioner. (iv) The Petitioner contended that he had filed OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 against the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Bonth directing eviction and issuance of Form “Kha” in Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23. The Petitioner submitted that the order of eviction as well as Form “Kha” were issued without following the procedure prescribed under the OPLE Act and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. (v) The Petitioner asserted that in OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023, notice was issued and the Lower Court Records were called for vide order dated 10.11.2023, and the matter was fixed for hearing on 26.12.2023. The Petitioner contended that despite pendency of the appeal, the Tahasildar was taking steps to cause eviction which is against the spirit of the OPLE Act. (vi) The Petitioner submitted that the eviction order was passed in undue haste without affording him a fair opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner contended that his long possession of more than forty years and his purchase under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1984 were not taken into account, and that under Section 8-A of the OPLE Act the Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 land ought to have been settled in his favour, the same being recorded as Gharabari. (vii) The Petitioner asserted that he had also filed W.P.(C) No. 35630 of 2023, which was later withdrawn on 06.11.2023. The Petitioner contended that he thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 39384 of 2023 challenging the initiation of Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23 and the action of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in not granting him protection in OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023. (viii) The Petitioner further submitted that this Court, by order dated 06.12.2023, directed Opposite Party No. 3 to ensure early disposal of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 preferably within three weeks, and deferred the operation of this Court’s earlier order dated 03.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023 until disposal of the appeal. The Petitioner contended that this Court also directed that while disposing of the appeal, reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the caveator. (ix) The Petitioner asserted that in view of this Court’s order dated 06.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 39384 of 2023, all prior orders merged with the said order, which directed for early disposal of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 and deferred the operation of the order dated 03.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023. The Petitioner contended that he never suppressed any fact and had disclosed the civil suit as well as the appeal in his Writ Petition. (x) The Petitioner further contended that during pendency of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023, Opposite Party No. 5 filed W.P.(C) No. 9170 of Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 2024, which was disposed of by order dated 11.07.2024 noting that the appeal had already been disposed of on 28.02.2024. (xi) The Petitioner submitted that the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, after hearing all parties, disposed of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 by order dated 28.02.2024, observing that without going into the merits, the appeal would be kept in abeyance till pronouncement of the final verdict in Civil Suit No. 1059 of 2023 (I), which would bind the parties. (xii) The Petitioner further submitted that the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, passed the interim and final orders in OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 after going through the records and hearing all parties, including Opposite Party No. 5. The Petitioner further contended that the allegation of favouritism against the Sub-Collector is baseless. (xiii) The Petitioner submitted that the Collector failed to consider that he has been in settled possession of the suit land for over forty years by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1984, and that the land is recorded as Gharabari. The Petitioner further contended that no public work was being undertaken over the said land and that the objection of Opposite Party No. 5 was only based on a private easementary claim, which could not be adjudicated in OPLE proceedings. The Government land cannot be subject to an easement claim without a proper legal declaration. (xiv) The Petitioner asserted that the Collector ought to have remanded the matter to the Sub-Collector for adjudication on merits instead of directing eviction. The Petitioner contended that the Collector also ignored the directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 39384 of 2023 and failed to consider the documents placed by the Petitioner, Page 9 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 including the pending civil suit where Opposite Party No. 5 himself has sought intervention. (xv) The Petitioner asserted that Opposite Party No. 5 has himself intervened in Civil Suit No. 1059 of 2023 (I) by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been allowed by order dated 17.01.2025. The Petitioner submitted that this makes it evident that Opposite Party No. 5 has accepted that the question of title and possession is already sub judice before the Civil Court. (xvi) The Petitioner contended that the allegation of fraud levelled by Opposite Party No. 5 is baseless, as the Petitioner’s title rests upon registered sale deeds, and the matter is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. (xvii) The Petitioner submitted that the order dated 08.11.2024 is arbitrary, illegal, and non-est in the eye of law, having been passed without due consideration of the factual and legal position, and is therefore liable to be set aside. (xviii) The Petitioner contended that he is in continuous possession of the suit land, that the shop is his sole source of livelihood, and that eviction in pursuance of the impugned order would cause irreparable loss and injury. (xix) The Petitioner asserted that the impugned action violates his constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and hence warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 (xx) The Petitioner submitted that he has no other efficacious or speedy remedy and has, therefore, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Opposite Party No. 5 is a permanent inhabitant of Mouza Ampor and has his residential house over Plot No. 2083, Khata No. 474, recorded as Gharabari in the name of his father, Brundaban Senapati. The Petitioner, however, has constructed two pucca shop rooms over Plot No. 2085, recorded in the name of Purta Bibhag (PWD), measuring about 30 ft. (cid:215) 15 ft., thereby encroaching upon Government land and obstructing ingress and egress of Opposite Party No. 5. (ii) The said land provides access to Kenduapada High School, Kenduapada Railway Station, and Kenduapada market area, all serving the public at large. Encroachments, including the Petitioner’s shop, are causing serious inconvenience to the public and prejudice to the Government’s interest. (iii) The Revenue Inspector, upon spot verification, reported that the Petitioner has encroached Government land belonging to PWD. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Bonth, by order dated 24.04.2023, recorded that the Petitioner has constructed a shop room on Plot No. 2085 which is Government land. (iv) The Petitioner, suppressing the true facts, has filed a series of writ petitions to obstruct lawful eviction proceedings. W.P.(C) No. 35630 of Page 11 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 2023 was withdrawn on 06.11.2023. W.P.(C) No. 39384 of 2023 was thereafter filed and disposed of on 06.12.2023 with a direction to the Sub-Collector to dispose of OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 within three weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing to Opposite Party No. 5. (v) The Petitioner is admittedly in occupation of Plot No. 2085, which is recorded as Government land belonging to Purta Bibhag. The Petitioner has no title over the same, his claim based on a sale deed of 1984 being fraudulent and void ab initio, as land recorded in the name of Government cannot be conveyed by private parties. (vi) The Tahasildar, Bonth, issued Form-“Ka” and Form-“Kha” in Encroachment Case No. 456/2022-23 and, by order dated 03.07.2023, held the Petitioner to be an encroacher and directed for removal of the encroachment. This Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 16080 of 2023, by order dated 03.08.2023, directed the Tahasildar to ensure removal of the encroachment within four weeks. (vii) On failure of the Tahasildar to comply, Opposite Party No. 5 filed CONTC No. 7364 of 2023, which was disposed of by order dated 12.10.2023 directing compliance within three weeks. Thereafter, eviction notices were issued on 02.11.2023 and 06.11.2023 for removal of the encroachment from Plot No. 2085. (viii) Despite such directions, the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, entertained OPLE Appeal No. 33 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner and, on 06.12.2023, passed interim orders restraining eviction. Ultimately, by final order dated 28.02.2024, the Sub-Collector kept the matter in abeyance till the decision of the Civil Suit, instead of adjudicating the matter on merits. Page 12 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 Such orders are illegal, reflect favouritism, and amount to colourable exercise of power. (ix) The Petitioner’s Writ Petition is devoid of merit, as the consistent findings of the Revenue Authority and the Revisional Authority are that the land belongs to the Government (Purta Bibhag), and that the Petitioner has encroached upon it. (x) The Petitioner’s reliance on a private sale deed of 1984 is fraudulent, as no valid title could pass in respect of Government land. The claim of ownership is, therefore, false, and the Petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. (xi) The Petitioner has suppressed material facts including the orders of this Hon’ble Court and the eviction proceedings. He has filed multiple Writ Petitions and appeals to delay removal of encroachment. (xii) The Petitioner’s allegation that his long possession entitles him to settlement under Section 8-A of the OPLE Act is misconceived, since the land is Government land reserved for public purposes, and encroachment cannot be regularised in the manner claimed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 was enacted as a protective measure to ensure that Government lands, particularly those earmarked for public purposes, are not gradually usurped through unauthorised occupation. The statute vests jurisdiction in the revenue authorities to detect and remove encroachments by summary process. At the same time, it does not contemplate that such Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 authorities will assume to themselves the adjudication of disputed titles. 8. The Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1 , while considering a case under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, observed: “8. …If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title...” This principle applies with equal force to proceedings under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. 9. It is equally well settled that entries in the Record of Rights carry a presumption of correctness and operate as prima facie evidence of the character of the land. The said presumption, however, is not conclusive and admits of rebuttal when rival claims of title founded upon registered instruments or long-standing possession are produced. In such circumstances, the controversy ceases to be one of summary determination before the revenue authorities and properly falls within the domain of the civil court. 10. The mere pendency of a civil suit does not, in law, extinguish the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. Nevertheless, in the absence of any injunctive order from the competent civil forum, it is incumbent upon the 1(1982) 2 SCC 134 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 revenue authorities to act with circumspection and to refrain from recording findings which may prejudice the issues pending adjudication before the civil court. 11. In the present case, the disputed land, namely Plot No. 2085, Khata No. 835 of Mouza Amporo, stands recorded in the Record of Rights as Government khata in the name of the Purta Bibhag. The Petitioner, however, asserts purchase under registered sale deeds of 1953 and 1984 and claims uninterrupted possession extending over several decades. He has also instituted Civil Suit No. 1059 of 2023 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak, seeking declaration of right, title, and consequential injunction. The Sub-Collector, while hearing the appeal, took note of the pendency of the civil action and the complex questions of title raised therein, and considered it prudent to hold the matter in abeyance until the civil court pronounces upon the parties’ rights. 12. The Collector, in revision, reversed that approach and directed eviction forthwith, emphasising that the land is Government property and serves as a public passage connecting the school, the market, and the railway station. While the public character of the land is a relevant factor, the order of the Collector overlooks the fundamental consideration that the Petitioner’s claim of title under registered deeds is already sub judice before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. By directing summary eviction in the face of such pending adjudication, the Collector has, in effect, pre-empted the civil court’s determination, which runs contrary to established principles. Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 13. The reliance placed on Section 8-A of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 is equally misconceived. That provision contemplates regularisation of certain categories of long-standing occupation but cannot be stretched to cover land forming part of public pathways or property earmarked for community use. More significantly, it does not authorise settlement in derogation of a civil court’s adjudication of title. 14. On a comprehensive view, the approach adopted by the Sub-Collector strikes a judicious balance between the statutory mandate of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and the imperative of preserving the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court in matters of title. Where a bona fide dispute of ownership is already engaging the consideration of a duly instituted civil suit, the proper course for the revenue authorities is to keep the encroachment proceedings in abeyance and to maintain status quo, leaving the rival claims to be conclusively determined by the civil court. CONCLUSION: In view of the foregoing analysis, the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE Revision No. 07 of 2024 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. The order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in OPLE(A) No. 33 of 2023, keeping the matter in abeyance till the disposal of Civil Suit No. V. 15. 1059 of 2023, stands restored. 16. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak, before whom the aforesaid suit is pending, shall make endeavour to dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of six Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2025 16:29:37 months from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this judgment. 17. 18. 19. Till such adjudication by the civil court, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession, and are restrained from altering the nature and character of the property in question. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the19th August, 2025/ (Dr.Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 17 of 17