High Court upholds existing precedent restricting writ jurisdiction, directs statutory appeal with interim relief, and mandates 15-day disposal timeline
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP(C)/22643/2022 of NISHAKAR CHHATOI Vs STATE OF ODISHA CNR ODHC010580762022 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2022 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single-judge bench (Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of the Orissa High Court; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing principle of alternative remedy and limitation of writ jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Statutory appeal under the Orissa Public Land Encroachment (Prevention, Control and Removal) Act, 1981 (O.P.L.E.) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition is maintainable against eviction notices under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where a specific statutory remedy exists under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act to challenge an eviction notice, a writ petition is not maintainable; petitioners must file the prescribed appeal within the statutory period, with interim protection, full hearing opportunity, a reasoned order, and disposal within directed timelines. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Principle of alternative remedy and restriction of writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory appeal exists. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner received eviction notices dated 28.07.2022 and 23.08.2022 from the Tahasildar in Encroachment Case No.20 of 2022-23 under the O.P.L.E. Act and filed a writ petition challenging both notices instead of appealing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts under the Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Principle of alternative remedy in writ jurisdiction |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The statutory appeal under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act is the exclusive remedy to challenge eviction notices; direct writ petitions will not be entertained.
- Petitioners must file the appeal within 15 working days, along with any condonation of delay application.
- Appellate authorities are directed to conclude the appeal hearing within 15 days of filing.
- Interim protection against coercive eviction is available until final disposal of the appeal.
- The appellate order must be reasoned, and petitioners given full opportunity to be heard and to submit documents.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act provides a clear statutory appeal remedy against eviction notices issued by a Tahasildar.
- The court reaffirmed the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should not supplant a specific statutory appellate forum.
- Leave was granted to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal, including a condonation petition and interim protection application.
- Binding directions were issued: filing within 15 working days; appellate authority to decide within 15 days; interim stay of coercive action; full hearing; and a reasoned order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged eviction notices dated 28.07.2022 and 23.08.2022 via writ petition.
State
- Submitted that Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act provides an exclusive appeal remedy and that a writ petition is not maintainable.
Factual Background
The petitioner was served two eviction notices on 28.07.2022 and 23.08.2022 by the Tahasildar, Kujang in Encroachment Case No. 20 of 2022-23 under the O.P.L.E. Act. Instead of filing the prescribed appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging both notices. The High Court heard submissions and found that the statutory appeal remedy under Section 12(1) of the O.P.L.E. Act was available and exclusive.
Statutory Analysis
Section 12(1) of the Orissa Public Land Encroachment (Prevention, Control and Removal) Act, 1981 provides for an appeal against eviction notices issued by a Tahasildar. The court interpreted this provision as the exclusive remedy for challenging eviction notices, thereby precluding writ jurisdiction in such matters.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed petitioners to file appeals within 15 working days and appellate authorities to decide within 15 days.
- Ordered interim protection against coercive eviction until the appeal is disposed.
- Mandated a reasoned order with full hearing and document submission opportunities.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principle of alternative remedy affirmed.