p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17166 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Beura …. Petitioner Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, Advocate -versus- Principal Secretary to Govt. Housing & Urban Development Dept. and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 29.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Virtual Mode. 2. The Petitioner in this application seeks to assail the order dated 20th May, 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, A.O., ODA Court (NZ), BMC, Bhubaneswar in UAP Case No.07 of 2026. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a residential house of the Petitioner is situated over Plot Nos.1656, 1657 & 1658 of Mouza Naharkanta under Pahala Police Station, Bhubaneswar in the District of Khordha. The said two storied residential building of the Petitioner was constructed after approval of the building plan. However, the Petitioner without applying for any approval of the building plan went on making further construction over the existing residential building. Hence, the UAP Case No.07 of 2026 was initiated on the file of the OSD-cum-AO (ODA Court), Bhubaneswar under Bhubaneswar Municipal p. 2 Corporation, Bhubaneswar. The UAP Case No.07 of 2026 was disposed of on 20th May, 2026 and in pursuance thereto a direction was issued to the Enforcement Wing, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar to take immediate steps for sealing of the premises and submit the compliance report. Pursuant to such direction, the residential building of the Petitioner has been sealed today, i.e., on 29th May, 2026. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he has no objection if the portion of unauthorized construction is sealed, but they should not be deprived of residing in their residential house which is constructed as per the approved building plan. 5. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC submits that the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 91(2) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 to file an appeal against the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner directs that the Petitioner if so advised may file an appeal under Section 91(2) of the ODA Act, 1982 before the State Government within a period of 15 days hence. It is further directed that the seal put by the Enforcement Wing, BMC shall be opened immediately and the Petitioner be allowed to reside in the residential house for the period of 21 days hence to enable him to file an appeal before the State Government and move an application for interim order. p. 3 7. It is needless to say that the TPCODL shall not disconnect the power supply for a period of 21 days during subsistence of the interim order as aforesaid. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Utkalika/Sumitra NAYAK Orissa, Cuttack 19:14:42 Signature Not Verified