IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1843 of 2026 Ekadasia Meher …. Petitioner Mr. A. C. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 05.05.2026 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner, who claims to be a landless poor person and has constructed a house over the Government land, which was allegedly encroached by his forefathers more than seventy years back, has preferred the present writ petition. A prayer has been made seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties, more particularly, Opposite Party No.5 (Tahasildar, Rampur in the district of Subarnapur), to consider the request made by the Petitioner vide his representation dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure-3), which is allegedly pending before him. A further prayer has been made to direct the Opposite Party No.5 to initiate a proceeding for settlement of the encroached Government land in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated time. 2.1. Also a prayer has been made to grant liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 12 of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, shortly, ‘the Act, 1972”. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the Opposite Parties and admits to have received copy of the writ petition, submits that the writ petition is premature. Admittedly, the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1972 is pending. The apprehension of the Petitioner that the Tahasildar, Rampur may demolish his dwelling house, constructed over the encroached land, without following due procedure is baseless so also the prayer made in the writ petition is also not maintainable, when encroachment proceeding is allegedly pending before the Tahasildar, Rampur vide L.E. Case No.230 of 2025 and order passed in the said encroachment case is appealable under Section 12 of the Act, 1972. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the State, drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in para-5 of the writ petition further submits, the Petitioner has also allegedly approached the Tahasildar, Rampur by submitting an application under Rule 5(2) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983, which is also allegedly pending before the Tahasildar, Rampur. Hence, the writ petition, being premature, deserves to be dismissed. 4. However, at this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition to avail his remedy in terms of the Act, 1972 and Rules made thereunder so also under the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and Rules made thereunder. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. 6. This Court is hopeful that the Tahasildar, Rampur shall proceed in L.E. Case No.230 of 2025 in accordance with law giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, provided the same is still pending. 7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Prasant (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Designation: Secretary Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 06-May-2026 19:00:21