Disposed¶20

Susanta Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Jan 2026WP(C)/34816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

O.P.L.E. Act Section 12(1) statutory appeal; eviction notice Annexure-3; Tahasildar Kanika Kendrapara; encroacher/encroachment; alternative remedy; writ not entertained; liberty to appeal within 15 working days; condonation of delay; interim protection; Appellate Authority to conclude hearing within two months; no coercive action till appeal filed; W.P.(C) No.34816 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; disposed 05.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an appeal under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act within 15 working days along with petitions for condonation of delay and interim protection; Appellate Authority to conclude hearing within two months of filing; no coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned Annexure-3 order till the appeal is filed; writ petition disposed of.

Susanta Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the eviction notice (Annexure-3) issued by the Tahasildar, Kanika, Kendrapara should be entertained by this Court despite the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act.

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act pointed out by learned counsel for the State, the Court was not inclined to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court permitted the Petitioner to file an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, and a petition for interim protection before the concerned Appellate Authority.

¶18

Key takeaways

The appeal was to be filed within a period of 15 working days, and in such event the Appellate Authority was directed to conclude the hearing within two months from the date of filing of the appeal.ratio¶18
Till filing of the appeal by the Petitioner, no coercive action was to be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order under Annexure-3 issued by the Opposite Party No.2/Tahasildar, Kanika, Kendrapara.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.34816 of 2025) by Susanta Mallick, described in the judgment as an encroacher, challenging the order of eviction notice under Annexure-3 issued by the Opposite Party No.2/Tahasildar, Kanika, Kendrapara. On the submission of learned counsel for the State that a clear statutory remedy of appeal was available under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, considering the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner was permitted to file an appeal, along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, and a petition for interim protection, before the concerned Appellate Authority as per Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act within 15 working days; the Appellate Authority was to conclude the hearing within two months of filing. Till the appeal was filed, no coercive action was to be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned Annexure-3 order. Writ petition disposed of (order dated 05.01.2026, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34816 of 2025

¶2

Susanta Mallick ..... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sukanta Kumar Nayak-2, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 05.01.2026

¶7

Order No.

¶8

01 . 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid

¶9

arrangement.

¶10

2. Heard.

¶11

3. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being encroacher, has challenged the order of eviction notice under Annexure-3 issued by the Opposite Party No.2/ Tahasildar, Kanika, Kendrapara.

¶12

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State submits that there is a clear statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act against the impugned order under Annexure-3. Hence, the Petitioner should approach the concerned Appellate

¶13

Authority.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed 5. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication

¶16

Location: OHCDate: 06-Jan-2026 11:25:02to ent ertain the prayer made in this Writ Petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 2.

¶18

However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court permits the Petitioner to file an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, so also a petition for interim protection before the concerned Appellate Authority as per Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act, within a period of 15 working days hence. In such event, Appellate Authority shall conclude the hearing within a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶19

6. It is further directed that till filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order under Annexure-3, issued by the Opposite Party No.2/Tahasildar, Kanika, Kendrapara.

¶20

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

¶21

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶22

Signature Not Verified Gitanjali

¶23

Gitanjali

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2026 11:25:02

¶25

Page 2 of 2.

Susanta Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Mallick 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinibas Nanda Vs Union of India

Biswanath Maharana Vs Union of India

Junu Begum Vs Union of India

Raghab Chandra Giri Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Sa Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Nath Mohanty Vs State of Odisha