Eviction cannot proceed before final adjudication of the encroachment case.

Encroachment Case No. 127 of 2024–25 had been initiated against the petitioner. The Tahasildar issued a notice directing him to remove himself from the land by 18 September 2026, failing which eviction would follow; after the petitioner sought additional time, the deadline was extended to 22 September, with eviction proposed for 23 September.

The petitioner contended that he had not been given an opportunity of hearing. The State submitted that he had been given an opportunity and that eviction was proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (“OPLE Act”).

The written instructions before the Court did not disclose that the encroachment case had been finally decided.

1. Whether eviction could proceed before the Tahasildar had passed a final order in the pending encroachment case.

2. Whether the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the encroachment proceedings before the Tahasildar proceeded further.

The Court applied the OPLE Act, 1972, under which the encroachment proceedings had been initiated and eviction was proposed.

It held that the encroachment case must be finally adjudicated before eviction is carried out; proceeding with eviction without first disposing of the case is contrary to the mandate of law.

The Court also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before the case was disposed of.

The written instructions established that the Tahasildar had scheduled eviction but did not show that a final order had been passed in Encroachment Case No. 127 of 2024–25.

Since eviction was being pursued while the underlying encroachment case remained undisposed of, the Court found the proposed sequence inconsistent with the legal requirement that the case be decided first. It therefore required the Tahasildar to hear the petitioner and determine the encroachment case before proceeding further.

The petitioner was directed to appear on 12 October 2026, and the Tahasildar was to provide him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was not to seek an adjournment on that date; the Tahasildar could adjourn for official necessity.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.