Disposed¶19

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2026WP(C)/20799/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court PIL on removal of encroachers from Government land; general notice of eviction versus individual notice; general eviction notice stayed in W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025; interim injunction prevented physical removal of 22 of 79 identified encroachers; relief deferred at this stage; petitioner may move to vacate stay; liberty to mention matter upon vacatur of interim order or disposal of main writ petition; Ranjan Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha; encroachment; eviction; Government land.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted at this stage; petitioner left free to take steps to vacate the stay order, and liberty granted to the parties to mention the matter if the interim order is vacated or the main writ petition is disposed of. ¶19

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief claimed in the instant PIL writ petition (removal of encroachers from Government land) can be granted at this stage, given that the general eviction notice has been stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025.

¶19

Court's answer

Because the general notice of eviction had already been stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025, the relief claimed in the instant writ petition cannot be granted at this stage.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner to take an appropriate step for vacating the order of stay on the general eviction notice.

¶19

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the parties to mention this matter in the event the interim order is vacated or the main writ petition (W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025) is disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL writ petition WP(C) PIL No.20799 of 2025 (Ranjan Kumar Pradhan and others v. State of Odisha and others), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 11.03.2026 by the Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) and Justice M.S. Raman. The petition concerns removal of encroachers from Government land. Out of seventy-nine identified encroachers, twenty-two are parties in writ proceedings and interim orders of injunction prevented physical removal. The authority had issued only a general notice of eviction, not individual notices, and that general notice stands stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025. Because of the existing stay, the Court held that the relief claimed in the instant petition cannot be granted at this stage; the petitioner may take appropriate steps to vacate the order of stay, and liberty was granted to the parties to mention the matter in the event the interim order is vacated or the main writ petition is disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) PIL No.20799 of 2025

¶2

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan and others

¶3

… Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Mrutyunjay Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

… Opposite Parties Ms. Biswbara Dash, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

07.

11.03.2026

1 . On 13^th November, 2025, it was informed to us that a date has been fixed for removal of the said encroachers from the Government land and in anticipation of the steps having taken in this regard, the matter is directed to be listed on that date. It was submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State that some of the encroachers have already approached this Court by filing writ petition and an interim order against their removal had already been passed.

¶16

2. Today, it is submitted that out of seventy-nine identified encroachers, twenty-two such encroachers are parties in the writ proceeding and in view of the order of injunction, the physical removal could not be ensured. It reveals, in course of the hearing, that a general notice of eviction was issued by the authority and not an individual notice and such general

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

notice has been stayed by this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2025.

¶19

3. Since the said general notice had already been stayed, we do not think that the relief so claimed in the instant writ petition can be granted at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to take an appropriate step for vacating the order of stay. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention this matter in the event said interim order is vacated or the main writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

MRS/Laxmikant

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Mar-2026 18:02:58

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan 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

M/S Makardhwaj Biswal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Servises Tax, Bhubaneswar

M/S. Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Chattisgarh Vs State of Odisha

Tusharkant Samantaray Vs the State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle

Bhimpur Service Cooperative Society Ltd., Ganjam Vs the State Tax Officer, Ganjam I Circle

M/S. 2IN Rocks Hotels and Resturant Private Limited, Bhubaneswar Vs Asst. Commissioner of State Tax, Ct and Gst, Bhubaneswar IV Circle

Arun Kumar Bissoyi Vs Additional State Tax Officer, Ct and Gst, Nabarangpur Circle