p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2229 of 2025 Prasanna Kumar Jagadala …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. Mr. Samarendra Bahadur -versus- State of Odisa & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Represented By ASC Ms. Gayatri Patra CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 22.01.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Though this matter was not listed today, on being mentioned during the first hour, the same is taken up through “Special Notice”. 3. Heard. 4. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice of eviction dated 13.01.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Tangarpali/Opposite Party No.4 in Encroachment Case No.03 of 2024 under Annexure-4. Apart from this, he further prays for a direction from this Court for consideration of the representation filed by the Petitioner on 16.01.2025. p. 2 p. 2 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that there is a clear statutory remedy of Appeal available under the O.P.L.E. Act against the notice of eviction/Annexure-4. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made in this Writ Petition. However, considering the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court permits the Petitioner to file an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, so also a petition for interim protection before the appellate authority as per the provision of the O.P.L.E. Act, within a period of fifteen working days hence. It is also made clear that if the Petitioner so advised, he may file an appropriate application as per the provision under Section 8-A of the O.P.L.E. Act for settlement of the land in question. 7. It is further directed that till the interim application to be filed by the Petitioner is taken up, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice of eviction/Annexure-4. 8. It is made clear that if the Petitioner does not file appeal along with the above noted petitions within the p. 3 p. 3 time stipulated hereinabove, the authority concerned shall not entertain the interim prayer at all. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra