Dismissed

Abhinash Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2026WP(C)/10679/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash an order dated 21.01.1994. The court rejected the application citing an inordinate delay of 32 years and the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the OPLE Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and declaration regarding land classification was dismissed.

Abhinash Behera Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.10679 of 2026

¶3

Abhinash Behera

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha & Others Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶8

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶13

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief:-

¶14

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Honhle Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶15

I Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.01.1994 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 in Appeal Case No.49/1990 under Annexure-2.

¶16

II Declare that mere classification of land as "Jungle Kissam" does not bar settlement under the OPLE Act unless notified as forest land.

¶17

III Restore the order of settlement passed by the Opp. Party No.4 in Encroachment Case No. 105/86-87. IV. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioner.

¶18

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.”

¶19

The Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court challenging the order dated 21.01.1994 passed by the SubCollector, Angul.

¶20

Mr. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate drew the attention of this Court to the provision under the OPLE Act. The relevant provision being Sub-Section 2 of Section 12, reads as follows:-

¶21

“ 12(2) The Collector may revise a decision or order made by a Subdivisional Officer under Sub-Sec. (1) ”

¶22

As appears from the case record the present Writ Application has been filed after lapse of 32 years. Admittedly, there is inexplicable delay and latches on the part of the Petitioner. It is consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction who seek to espouse his cause rising from a deep slumber all of a sudden. In the instant case the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.01.1994. The subject matter in issue relates to the OPLE Act and the Petitioner has a remedy under the said statute to ventilate his grievance. Since adequate efficacious relief is available under the statute it is otherwise not desirable to entertain the application.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforesaid observation, the present application stands dismissed.

¶24

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Sipra

Page 2 of 2

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Oris sa, C uttack Date: 02-May-2026 15:52:33

Abhinash Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinash Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Nilachal Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Durjyodhan Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Pitamber Malik Vs State of Odisha

Pradipta Kumar Sahoo Vs Dattatraya Bhausaheb Shinde, Collector Cuttack

Anil Kumar Mahakhuda Vs State of Odisha

Muralidhar Sethi Vs State of Odisha