Disposed¶22

Chandan Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Jul 2026WP(C)/7251/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; alternative statutory remedy doctrine; revision under O.P.L.E Act; Sub-Collector Balasore; L.E. Appeal No.34 of 2023; land encroachment; dismissal of appeal; condonation of delay; interim protection; liberty to approach Revisional Authority; time-bound disposal of revision (three months); writ disposed of; Odisha High Court; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a revision before the concerned Revisional Authority under the O.P.L.E Act, along with petitions for condonation of delay and interim protection, within fifteen working days; the Revisional Authority directed to conclude the hearing within three months of filing. ¶22

Chandan Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Sub-Collector, Balasore's order dated 16.09.2025 dismissing L.E. Appeal No.34 of 2023 is maintainable when a statutory remedy of revision under the O.P.L.E Act is available against the impugned order.

¶17

Court's answer

The Petitioner wrongly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by bypassing the statutory revisional remedy available before the Revisional Court; the Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made in the Writ Petition.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court permitted the Petitioner to file a revision before the concerned Revisional Authority under the O.P.L.E Act, along with a petition for condonation of delay with sufficient cause, if any, and a petition for interim protection, within fifteen working days.

¶21

Key takeaways

Upon such filing, the Revisional Authority shall conclude the hearing after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of filing of the Revision.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF — Challenge to order dated 16.09.2025 of the learned Sub-Collector, Balasore dismissing L.E. Appeal No.34 of 2023 — Petitioner alleged to be an encroacher — Statutory remedy of revision available under the O.P.L.E Act against the impugned order — Held, Petitioner wrongly invoked writ jurisdiction by bypassing the statutory revisional remedy; Court not inclined to entertain the prayer — Liberty granted to file revision before the concerned Revisional Authority with petitions for condonation of delay (with sufficient cause) and interim protection within fifteen working days — Revisional Authority to conclude hearing after adequate opportunity of hearing within three months of filing of the Revision.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 7251 of 2026

¶3

Chandan Kumar Jena

¶4

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

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s)

¶7

Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

24.07.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner alleged to be an encroacher has challenged the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Collector, Balasore in L.E. Appeal No.34 of 2023.

¶17

During course of hearing, learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits that there is a clear statutory remedy of revision available under the O.P.L.E Act against the impugned order dated 16.09.2025. Hence, the Petitioner should approach the concerned Revisional Authority.

¶18

In such view of the matter, the Petitioner has wrongly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by bypassing the statutory revisional remedy available before the Revisional Court. Hence,

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 18:31:53

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made in this Writ Petition. However, this Court permits the Petitioner to file a revision along with a petition for condonation of delay with sufficient cause, if any, so also a petition for interim protection before the concerned Revisional Authority as per the provision under the O.P.L.E Act, within a period of fifteen working days hence. In such event, the said Revisional Authority shall conclude the hearing after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of filing of the Revision.

¶22

This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶24

Murmu

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 18:31:53

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Chandan Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Jena 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

Dipa Singh Vs State of Odisha

Ritan Roul @ Ritarani Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Sudhansu Digal Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Tikenani Kumbhar Vs State of Odisha