RATNAMANI MAHARANA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33952 of 2026

CNR No. ODHC010791732026

(In the matter of application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India).

Ratnamani Maharana Petitioner
…
-versus-
State of Odisha & others Opposite Parties
…


For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Jena, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. J.K.K. Ray, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 09.11.2026(ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has
prayed to quash the Annexure-1, but the petitioner
has filed Annexure-1 series which is a combination of
orders passed by Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in
Encroachment Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022 and the
petitioner probably seeks for quashing of these
orders including the order dated 11.09.2026
disposing the aforesaid appeal accordingly.
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 1 of 11

2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are
not only incoherent, but also unspecific and unclear,
however, what are gathered from the documents
filed to the writ petition together with submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that the
petitioner and her deceased-husband were in
authorized occupation of a piece of Government land
under Plot No. 347 of Holding No. 683 in Mouza
Bhagwanpur for an area of Ac. 0.040 dec. and
accordingly, in the year 2004 an encroachment was
initiated against deceased-husband of the petitioner
vide Encroachment case No. 352 of 2004, wherein
the Tahalsidar, Bhubaneswar by way of an order
passed on 05.03.2018 ordered for settlement of land
in favour of the encroacher being a home-stead less
person and submitted the record for confirmation to
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, who returned the
record for clearance of Government, since the land
in question was coming under restricted zone of BDA
as per Revenue Department Notification No. 2864/R
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 2 of 11

dated 14.01.1996 and accordingly, the ADM,
Khordha instructed to file an appeal in the matter,
but later on being aggrieved by the order/notice
dated 21.02.2019 passed by Tahasildar
Bhubaneswar in Encroachment Case No. 352 of 2004
on the same land, the late husband of the petitioner
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5109 of 2022
which was disposed of by granting liberty to the late
husband of the petitioner to file an appeal against
such order/notice with direction for condonation of
delay and for disposal of the appeal on merit. It was
further directed in the aforesaid writ petition that in
the event of petitioner has not been evicted from the
disputed property in question and is still in
possession thereof, there shall be a status quo over
the disputed property for six weeks and the late
husband of the present petitioner accordingly filed
an appeal U/S. 12 of the OPLE Act, 1972 to set aside
the aforesaid order/notice dated 21.02.2019. In
terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 3 of 11

No. 5109 of 2022, the Sub-Collector vide his order
dated 29.04.2023 disposed of the Appeal by
observing therein that the Mouza-Bhagwanpur is an
urban area and, therefore, the GA Dept. is
competent to settle the land basing on feasibility of
the encroacher and send the case record to
Tahasildar to do the needful and move in the matter
to Govt. in GA Dept. for disposal of the case.
2.1. While the matter stood thus, the late
husband of the writ petitioner had again moved this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 9327 of 2023 which was
disposed of on 10.05.2023 with a direction for early
disposal of OPLE Appeal case No. 01 of 2022
preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of such order with further
direction for maintain status quo over the scheduled
land with no coercive action against the writ
petitioner till disposal of Appeal, but the appeal in
question was in fact disposed of 12 days before the
disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. It is strange,
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 4 of 11

but true that the present petitioner without
enquiring the status of her case in the matter has
approached the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar again
on 13.09.2025 for disposal of the Encroachment
Appeal Case no. 1 of 2022 which was already
disposed of more than two years and three months
before, by alleging negligence and laches on the part
of the Sub collector for not adhering to the order of
this court passed in WPC No. 5109 of 2022. On
receipt of such petition, the Sub collector,
Bhubaneswar call for the LCR in Encroachment Case
No. 352 of 2004 and passed the impugned order on
11.09.2026 disposing the appeal of the present
petitioner accordingly.
3. Heard, Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. J.K.
Khandayat Ray, learned ASC and perused the
record.
4. No doubt, after arguing for some time, Mr.
Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 5 of 11

adjournment, but on the last date, the following
order was passed: -
“When the matter was taken up after a pass-
over, Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks for an
adjournment.
Accordingly, as per the request and
suggestion of Mr. Jena to take up the matter
on 09.11.2026, list this matter on
09.11.2026.”

5.
When it was pointed out as to how the
present Petitioner could file an appeal after disposal
of the same way back in the year 2023, Mr. Jena
again tried to mislead the Court and later on seeks
for an adjournment. It is, however, found from the
documents filed by the petitioner that the petitioner
has in fact approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.
9327 of 2023, wherein the following order was
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court: -
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-
opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the
petitioner for disposal of the OPLE Appeal
Case No. 1 of 2022 pending before the Sub-
Collector, Bhubaneswar, namely, opposite
party No.1 within a stipulated period.
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 6 of 11

3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that pending disposal of
the appeal before opposite party No.1 in
OPLE Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022, opposite
party Nos. 2 & 3 are contemplating to evict
him from the schedule land. It is further
submitted that a time limit may be fixed for
disposal of the appeal with interim protection
in favour of the petitioner vis-à-vis the
schedule land or else he would be prejudiced
immensely.
4. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State on
the other hand submits that in view of the
Courts’ order in W.P.(C) No. 5019 of 2022
rd
vide Anneuxre-3 on 3 March, 2023, liberty
was granted to the petitioner to challenge
the eviction in appeal and accordingly, the
appeal has been preferred which is pending
decision and hence, necessary order may
perhaps be passed for its disposal within a
stipulated period of time which is also the
limited prayer in the writ petition.
5. Having regard to the above facts and
submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and since in the
meantime, the petitioner has filed an appeal
and the same is awaiting disposal before the
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-opposite party
No.1, the Court is of the view that a direction
is required to be issued to expedite the
hearing of the same and to dispose it of
within a stipulated time.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction to opposite party
No.2 to ensure early disposal of OPLE Appeal
Case No. 1 of 2022 preferably within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and till the time of its
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 7 of 11

disposal, status quo shall be maintained vis-
à-vis the schedule land with no coercive
action to be taken against the petitioner by
opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.
8. A certified copy of the order be issued as
per rules.”


6. It is considered appropriate to state here
that the petitioner has filed one document under
Annexure-1 series which is the order passed by the
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in Encroachment Appeal
Case No. 01 of 2022, wherein the following order
was passed on the first date on 13.09.2025: -

“Perused the Encroachment Appeal Memo
dtd. 23.07.2025 filed by the appellant
through Advocate Sudhanshu Sekhar Jena &
associates with a prayer for appropriate
order being aggrieved by the order passed
by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in
Encroachment Case no.352/2004 on the
following land schedule.”

Land Schedule


Mouza Khata No. Plot No. Area
Bhagwanpur 683 342 Ac. 0.200 dec.

7. In the aforesaid Appeal, the Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar on 11.09.2026 passed the following
order: -
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 8 of 11

appeal case record was
“This
reconstructed for the interest of justice,
when the original encroachment appeal case
no-01/2022 was not readily available.
However, while taking up the case for final
order, it was brought to the notice by the
office,that the case record has been traced
out.
On perusal of the original appeal case, it
is evident that the predecessor has passed
final order on dtd.29.04.2023. Appellant has
filed the WP(C) no-9397/2023 prior to such
order. Hon'ble High Court vide order dt.
10.05.2023 has directed to dispose of the
appeal preferably within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of the order.
Thus, it is clear that the appeal had been
disposed of prior to the above direction.
As the appeal is reconstructed one and
heard but the original appeal found late
shows that the same has been disposed of,
the reconstructed record becomes void and
legally ineffective for the reason that a
matter cannot be decided twice. Since no
parallel procedure is admissible, I am
constrained to drop the reconstructed
proceeding. Keep this case record with the
original appeal case for reference.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court
today.”

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the above
order in the Appeal was brought to the notice of Mr.
Jena, he again tried to give irrelevant explanation by
submitting different pleas which are not convincing.
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 9 of 11

The petitioner herein has tried to mislead the Court
by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court twice and
that too, without any rhyme and reason. Further, the
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar has rightly refused to
invoke the Appeal jurisdiction since the Appeal has
already been disposed of more than two years
before.
9. In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
consideration of materials placed on record, the
petitioner has in fact tried to mislead the Court
which is not at all acceptable and the present Writ
Petition merits no consideration, however, this Court
intended to impose exemplary cost on the present
petitioner, but since the present petitioner is a poor
widow lady and she probably might not have known
the previous proceeding instituted by her husband,
this Court does not wish to impose any cost on her.
It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach
appropriate forum including Revisional forum for
redressal of her grievance, since order has been
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 10 of 11

passed in Encroachment Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022
with observation that the GA Dept. is competent to
settle the land basing on feasibility of the encroacher
and send the case record to Tahasildar to do the
needful and move in the matter to Govt. in GA Dept.
for disposal of the case.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge







Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 9 day of November, 2026/S.Sasmal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No. 33952 of 2026
Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Nov-2026 15:12:48