p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6398 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Barik … Petitioner Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. The commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation 3. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 16.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is an occupant of the Government land bearing Plot No.151 under Khata No.91, Mouza-Samantapuri, Bhubaneswar and has been staying there for 45 years. 3. It is asserted that notwithstanding the earlier rejection of his prayer and in view of the provisions contained in Section 483 of Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 dealing with land right and Property rights to slum dwellers, the case merits consideration. p. 2 4. It is submitted that ventilating his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to the commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.2) and the same is pending consideration. Alleging inaction in the matter of such consideration, the present writ application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court the matter does not merit any consideration. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the claim of the Petitioner vis-à-vis the provisions as contained under Section 483 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 was never the subject matter of consideration of this Court. As such, he has a fresh cause of action. 7. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the Opposite Party No.2 is called upon to take a decision independently irrespective of the negation of the earlier claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Provisions as contained in Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 more particularly Section 483, as adverted to hereinabove. p. 3 8. Taking into account the age of the Petitioner, such decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the writ petition. 9. It is needless to state that, this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the tenability of the claim, which has to be gone into independently. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. U.C.C. as per the rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer