Birabara Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors.

G. Satapathy, J.

The Petitioner by way of this Writ Petition, seeks for a relief with confusing prayer, but this Court by confining to the prayer as advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the course of hearing considers it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition.

In course of hearing, Mr. Dillip Kumar Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Tahasildar, Balipatna has not provided any opportunity to the Petitioner, but his hale bent on to carry W.P.(C). No.30910 of 2026 out the eviction process and, therefore, the Tahasildar, Balipatna may be suitably instructed to pass appropriate order on merit in this case. On the other hand, Mr. Rajani Bhusan Mishra, learned AGA by producing the written instruction obtained from the Tahasildar, Balianta submits that not only the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of hearing, but the Tahasildar is proceeding to remove the encroachment made in accordance with law and, therefore, there is no illegality in issuing eviction notice to the Writ Petitioner.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the written instruction as produced by the learned AGA disclose about initiation of Encroachment Case No.127 of 2024-25 against the Petitioner, but the only dispute remains is with regard to adjudication of such encroachment case. It is found from the instruction provided by the learned AGA that the Tahasildar, Balipatna has issued notice vide Memo No.1241 dated 11^th September, 2026 directing the Writ Petitioner to remove himself from the encroached land by 18^th September, 2026, failing which he would be evicted therefrom by 19^th September, 2026 at about 11 am in view of the provision of OPLE Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). What is more surprising is that the written instruction as submitted by learned AGA contains one letter purportedly written by the Petitioner to the Tahasildar, Balipatna for providing 5 to 7 days’ time and accordingly, the Tahasildar, Balipatna has endorsed on such application allowing time to the petitioner till 22^nd September, 2026 by stating therein that the process of eviction will be carried out on 23^rd September, 2026 at about 11 am. It is to the utter surprise of this Court that the Tahasildar is probably yet to pass any final order in Encroachment Case No.127 of 2024-25, but has proceeded to carry out the eviction process by issuing notice to the petitioner, since the written instruction as produced does not disclose the status of Encroachment Case No.127 of 2024-25, although the same has been obtained to meet out the query of this Court with regard to disposal of the aforesaid encroachment case. Thus, proceeding with the process of evicting without disposing the encroachment case initiated for the purpose is contrary to the mandate of law.

In the aforesaid facts and situation and on consideration of the materials placed on record keeping in view the written instruction as submitted, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition by directing the Tahasildar, Balipatna to pass final order first in EC No.127 of 2024-25 in accordance with law and to proceed thereafter. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner is directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Balipatna on 12^th October, 2026 who shall thereafter proceed to dispose of the encroachment case by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Writ Petitioner. It is strictly made clear that the Petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Tahasildar, Balipatna on that date and in case he seeks for any adjournment on that date, the same shall be rejected, but the Tahasildar may adjourn the proceeding in case of any official necessity. All the pending IAs are disposed of accordingly.