Dismissed

Laxman Deulapadia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2026WP(C)/29364/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice held to be amenable to statutory appeal under Section 12(1) of the OPLE Act, a discipline required under established case law, without examining the merits. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within fifteen days, subject to a stay on coercive action if the appeal is filed timely. Questions of fact

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appeal before Sub-Collector under Section 12(1) of OPLE Act within 15 days; no coercive action in interim.

Laxman Deulapadia Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29364 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010693192026

¶2

Laxman Deulapadia

¶3

..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Bibhu Prasad Chhualsingh, 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 assailing the eviction notice dated 04.08.2026 issued by the Addl. Tahasildar, Similiguda under Annexure-2.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

4. Having regard to the nature of the challenge made in the present Writ Petition, this Court finds that the impugned notice/order issued by the Tahasildar under the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short, “the OPLE Act”) is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 12(1) of the said Act. Under the said provision, an

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:29:50

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

appeal against any decision or order made by the Tahasildar lies before the Sub-Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector.

¶21

5. In view of the availability of the efficacious statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the challenge to the impugned notice/order at this stage. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the concerned SubCollector, under Section 12(1) of the OPLE Act within a period of fifteen days from today.

¶22

6. In the event the Petitioner files such appeal within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall entertain the same in accordance with law. The appellate authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order.

¶23

7. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner in respect of the case land pursuant to the impugned notice/order dated 04.08.2026, provided the Petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within the period stipulated herein.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the statutory appellate authority in accordance with law.

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:29:50

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

9. With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the Writ Petition stands

¶29

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 17:29:50

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Laxman Deulapadia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Deulapadia 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