IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 26848 of 2024 Sanatan Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA Ms. P, Naidu, Advocate for O.P. No.4 Mr. S. Kar, Advocate for O.P. No.6 Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.7 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 26.03.2025 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The Petitioner who has been noticed to be evicted from the deity’s land by the Tahasildar, Narasinghpur under Annexure-6 has approached this Court in present Writ Petition. p. 2 3. According to the Record of Rights, admittedly the land in question stands recorded in the name of the deity-Sri Balunkeswar Mahadev Bije Nijagaon. It is prima facie seen from the notice of eviction under Annexure-6 that the Tahasildar, Narasinghpur has issued noticed to evict the Petitioner from the recorded land of the deity, on being requested by the Additional Assistant Endowment Commissioner, Cuttack in his letter dated 14th May 2024 and subsequent letters. 4. It is true that specific procedures have been enshrined for restoration of deity’s land and eviction of the encroachers. But it is observed that, in the present case without following any due procedure prescribed under the OHRE Act, the Tahasildar, Narsinghpur has proceeded to give notice of eviction to the Petitioner. Such action taken on the part of the Tahasildar, Narasinghpur is found de-hors due procedure prescribed under the OHRE Act, who has no jurisdiction under the OHRE Act to proceed as such. Thus, we are inclined to set aside the impugned notice of eviction under Annexure-6. p. 3 5. The Writ Petition is allowed to this extent. However, it is made clear that this order shall not stand on the way of appropriate authority to proceed in accordance with law against any encroacher of the land of deity concerned and restoration of the same. (B.P. Routray) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/ Bijay