Disposed¶21

Immauddin @Iman Husen v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Dec 2025WP(C)/33568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.33568 of 2025, High Court of Orissa, decided 15.12.2025 (K.R. Mohapatra and Sanjay Kumar Mishra, JJ.). Eviction notice by competent Authority, Land Acquisition Department, Sundargarh Collectorate; encroacher on land acquired for railway project; notice No.1760 dated 26.09.2025; sixty days to vacate; compensation for land and structure deposited before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in a reference; alternative remedy; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach Civil Court; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in accordance with law. ¶21

Immauddin @Iman Husen Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief sought against the eviction notice can be granted in a writ petition when the Petitioner is an encroacher who did not avail the remedy before the Civil Court, where the compensation reference is pending.

¶20

Court's answer

This Court found that the Petitioner, being an encroacher, received the notice for eviction of the land within sixty days from receipt thereof; without availing the remedy before the Civil Court, the writ petition was filed, and the relief claimed cannot be granted in a writ petition, particularly as the matter is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in a reference.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in accordance with law.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition / railway project / eviction of encroacher. The Petitioner, an encroacher over land in mouza Gudagudajora (Khata No.77/580), Sundargarh district, acquired for a railway project, challenged an eviction notice dated 26th September, 2025 (Annexure-1) issued by the competent Authority, Land Acquisition Department, Sundargarh Collectorate, directing vacation within sixty days. Compensation for land and structure had been deposited before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in a reference. Held: the Petitioner being an encroacher received the eviction notice, and without availing the remedy before the Civil Court the relief claimed cannot be granted in a writ petition; the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.33568 OF 2025

¶3

Immauddin @ Imam Husen

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Brundaban Rout, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & ors.

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (for O.P. Nos.1 to 4)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶11

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

15.12.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the eviction notice dated 26th September, 2025 (Annexure-1) issued by the competent Authority, Land Acquisition Department, Sundargarh Collectorate, as the property in mouza Gudagudajora under Khata No.77/580 in Sundargarh district has been acquired for a railway project.

¶17

Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land in question stood recorded in the name of Opposite Party Nos.5 to 8. The Petitioner having encroached upon the land in question has constructed a residential house and residing therein with his family since long. The Petitioner was not served with any notice of land acquisition. However, notice No.1760 dated 26^th September, 2025 (Annexure-1) was issued by the competent Authority, Land Acquisition Department Sundargarh Collectorate directing him to vacate the land within a period of sixty days. It is also stated that the compensation amount with regard to land and structure has been deposited before the learned Civil Judge

¶18

(Senior Division), Sundargarh. Thus, apprehending eviction, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶19

Mr. Mishra, learned ASC submits that the writ petition is misconceived. The Petitioner is an encroacher and has no semblance of right on the compensation amount. He also submits that South Eastern Railways is not a party to this case. Since the compensation with regard to land and structure thereon is deposited before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in a reference, it is open to the Petitioner to avail the remedy before the said Court. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶20

Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner being an encroacher received the notice for eviction of the land in question within sixty days from the date of receipt of such notice. Without availing the remedy before the Civil Court, this writ petition has been filed. The relief claimed cannot be granted in a writ petition more particularly when, the matter is stated to be pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in a reference.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in accordance with law.

¶22

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra)

Banita

Judge

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 16-Dec-2025 11:13:02

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Immauddin @Iman Husen v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immauddin @Iman Husen v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratyush Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pritam Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Manjulata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Pani Vs the Competent Authority Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Nh, Khurda

Akshaya Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha