Disposed

Kamala Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2026WP(C)/29155/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa held that the Tahasildar of Nuapada lacked jurisdiction to demolish the petitioner's boundary wall as the land falls under NAC Khariar. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the Executive Officer, NAC Khariar, and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a representation to the Executive Officer, NAC Khariar, within fifteen days; stay on coercive action under the inquiry report.

Kamala Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29155 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010696772026

¶2

Kamala Sahu

¶3

..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Sushanta Kumar Joshi, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

.. .…. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

11.09.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the

¶15

following prayer:

¶16

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for records and after hearing the parties, pleased to allow the writ petition and issue an appropriate order or direction to OP No.4 to reconsider and settle the matter afresh in accordance with law, by initiating and concluding the appropriate statutory proceeding under the OPLE Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder;

¶17

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;”

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:29:49

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the land in question falls under the area of the NAC Khariar /Opposite Party No.3, the Tahasildar, Nuapada has no jurisdiction to demolish the boundary wall of the Petitioner on the basis of the inquiry report under Annexure-3 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Khariar, Road.

¶23

5. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since the disputed land in question is within the purview of the NAC Khariar, the Tahasildar, Nuapada has no jurisdiction to demolish the boundary wall of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Executive Officer, NAC, Khariar by filing a representation, along with relevant document, within fifteen working days from today. In the event such representation is filed within the stipulated period, the Executive Officer, NAC, Khariar shall consider and dispose of the same, taking into account all relevant aspects of the matter and the documents produced by the Petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of fifteen days thereafter.

¶24

6. It is further directed that, till disposal of the said representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner pursuant

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:29:49

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

to the inquiry report dated 21.08.2026 under Annexure-3, submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Khariar Road.

¶29

7. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶30

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Murmu

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:29:49

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Kamala Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamala Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases