High Court upholds existing practice under Article 226 by directing encroacher to approach Collector and restraining coercive action pending decision
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/22548/2025 of RAMA CHANDRA PANGI Vs STATE OF ORISSA |
| CNR | ODHC010558022025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Orissa |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing practice |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Article 226), Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The High Court held that a challenge to an eviction proceeding is premature if no eviction notice has been issued. It reaffirmed that the petitioner must first approach the Collector and District Magistrate with a representation, exhausting the statutory remedy available under relevant land laws. The Court directed the petitioner to file the representation within seven working days and required the Collector to decide on it within three weeks. Until a decision on that representation is taken, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits, thereby maintaining the prerogative of the statutory authority to adjudicate first. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, alleged to be an encroacher, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties to dispose of his pending representation against a fresh Record of Rights order. No eviction notice had been issued to him. The State submitted the petition was premature. The Court refrained from adjudicating the merits and directed exhaustion of the statutory remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court confirmed that a writ petition against eviction is premature if no eviction notice has been served.
- It clarified that the petitioner must first approach the Collector and District Magistrate with a representation.
- Established timelines: representation to be filed within seven working days; decision by Collector within three weeks.
- Imposed a stay on any coercive eviction action pending the Collector’s decision.
- Reaffirms the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Petitioner’s Claim
The petitioner alleged encroachment proceedings and sought a writ directing disposal of his representation against a fresh Record of Rights order. -
State’s Submission
The State contended the petition was premature, as no eviction notice had been issued. -
Court’s Analysis
- Noted absence of any statutory notice or order of eviction.
- Emphasized the need to exhaust alternative remedies before filing a writ under Article 226.
-
Directions Issued
- Petitioner to file representation before the Collector and District Magistrate, Malkangiri, within seven working days.
- Collector to decide on the representation within three weeks.
- Stay on any coercive action against the petitioner until the representation is decided.
-
Merits Left Open
The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the petitioner’s encroachment claim.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged encroachment matter; sought direction for time-bound disposal of his representation.
- Requested stay of any coercive eviction action.
Opposite Parties (State)
- Contended no eviction notice had been issued; petition was premature.
- Urged exhaustion of statutory remedy before approaching the High Court.
Factual Background
Rama Chandra Pangi, alleged to be an encroacher, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging delay in disposal of his representation against a fresh Record of Rights order. The petitioner sought a directive to the opposite parties to dispose of his appeal within a stipulated timeframe and to restrain any eviction action. The State informed the Court that no eviction notice had been issued, rendering the petition premature.
Statutory Analysis
- Invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Emphasized the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies before entertaining a writ petition in eviction or land matters.
- Did not interpret specific sections of any land law but applied established practice.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed
Citations
No direct citations of earlier judgments or reporters were invoked in the order.