p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.13042 of 2026 Ramchandra Bihari … Petitioner Mr. B. Baral, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Govt. of Odisha, At - Lokaseba Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda 2. The Project Director, Puri 3. The Sub-Collector, Puri 4. The Block Development Officer, Satyabadi Block, Satyabadi 5. The Tahasildar, Satyabadi 6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ketakipatana …. Opposite Parties Mr. M. R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 21.05.2026 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. p. 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the notice issued by the Tahasildar (Opposite Party No.5), inter alia, indicating that the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of one of the shops in the shopping complex of Ketakipatna Panchayat. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that ex facie such allegation is not correct, since the Petitioner is in lawful possession of the said shop by virtue of the resolution dated 20.04.2026 of the Panchayat Samiti and there is no alteration qua the status of the Petitioner vis-a-vis the Panchayat samiti. It is also stated that in terms of the resolution the Petitioner has also made security deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2021, which is on record and placing reliance on the decision at Serial No.16 of the resolution it is asserted that the agreement so entered with the Panchayat Samiti shall be for a minimum period of five years and the agreement having been entered on 23.06.2021, the Petitioner as such is entitled to continue till 22.06.2026. Hence, the very issuance of notice at Annexure-1 is without jurisdiction and outcome of non-application of mind. 4. It is stated that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has preferred a representation which has been brought on record by way of additional affidavit, was sent by registered post to the Tahasildar-Opposite Party No.5 and copies thereof has been endorsed to BDO and Sub- collector (O.P. Nos.4 and 3 respectively). 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that without awaiting the response of the authorities to representation, p. 3 the Petitioner has rushed to this Court and on the said count alone, the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be sub served, if the Tahasildar- Opposite Party No.5 is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-7 series (Additional Affidavit) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition along with the additional affidavit, affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner. Status quo in respect of the shop room as on date shall be maintained till the decision is taken by the Tahasildar- Opposite Party No.5 as aforesaid, in the event the Petitioners submits a representation within a period of four days from the date of uploading of this order. 7. In the event the Petitioner does not stick to the aforementioned time line, the interim order of status quo as passed shall stay vacated. It is made clear that the Petitioners shall appear on the date fixed and shall not seek an adjournment to avail opportunity of hearing. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina