Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17903 of 2026 Basanta Senapati ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sukanta Kumar Nayak (2) -versus- 1) state of odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Sub-Collector, Kendrapara 3) Tahasildar, Aul Represented by Adv. – Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has sought for the following relief: “The Petitioner therefore prays that the Honourable Court be pleased to admit this application and after hearing the petitioner's advocate issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, quashing the eviction notice issued by Tahasildar, Aul; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Jun-2026 16:19:59 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 3. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30551 of 2024 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 06.12.2024 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the remedy and, till disposal of the appeal it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the appeal preferred by the Petitioner bearing Encroachment Appeal No.30 of 2024 is pending before the Sub- Collector, the Tahasildar has again issued an eviction notice at Annexure-3 to the writ application. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Tahasildar has deliberately violated interim order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however it appears that the Petitioner has not approached the Tahasildar and has not brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Tahasildar, Aul. 7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Aul by filing a detailed representation along with relevant records. In such Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Jun-2026 16:19:59 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. eventuality, the Tahasildar shall take into consideration the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application and abide by the direction of this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT