Bhubaneswar: The vacation bench of the Orissa High Court has provided temporary relief to multiple residents of Pathargadia, located on the northern fringes of the capital city, by halting eviction proceedings initiated under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972.
This intervention followed a massive drive by Khurda district administration to reclaim high-value government land near the city’s IT corridor.
Hearing a batch of 13 separate petitions, Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo issued identical status quo orders concerning the disputed properties, effectively pausing any demolition or displacement actions until July 17, while instructing the occupants to pursue formal administrative appeals.
On May 15, the Bhubaneswar additional tehsildar had served notices on various plots in Pathargadia, a highly sought-after and rapidly urbanising locality situated near Patia and Sundarpur. Revenue department sources indicate that the total land under scrutiny spans 9.2 acres, with individual plots held by the petitioners ranging between 50 and 90 decimals.
Legal counsels representing the residents argued collectively that their clients have maintained continuous, uninterrupted possession of these lands for periods spanning anywhere from 12 to 30 years, asserting that the sudden eviction notices by the revenue department lacked proper equitable consideration.
The gtate government attorneys strongly opposed the writ petitions, raising a preliminary objection regarding their maintainability in the high court. The state argued that the petitioners had bypassed the established legal hierarchy, pointing out that the OPLE Act contains an explicit statutory framework for grievances. Under the existing law, any individual aggrieved by an order of the tehsildar must first approach the designated appellate authority, which in this jurisdiction is the sub-collector of Bhubaneswar.
Revenue officials have frequently maintained in similar regional disputes that direct writ petitions should not be entertained when such structured, alternative remedies are readily available.
Acknowledging the merit in the state’s procedural argument, Justice Sahoo ruled that the petitioners must take their grievances to the sub-collector. However, to prevent irreversible damage or displacement before the merits of the case can be properly reviewed, the court deemed it necessary to protect the status of the properties in the interim.
The bench explicitly ordered that the physical nature, character, ownership, and possession of the disputed lands in Mouza-Pathargadia must remain exactly as they were on the date of the ruling.
To ensure a swift transition to the proper legal channel, the court directed the residents to file their formal appeals, along with stay applications, by June 29, while ordering the appellate authority to adjudicate those interim requests strictly in accordance with the law.
