The OPLE Act vests original eviction jurisdiction in the Tahasildar, not the Collector.

Kanakalata Malla had obtained an order in W.P.(C) No. 27459 of 2025 directing her to approach the appropriate authority with an application, which was to be considered in accordance with law.

She approached the Collector, Kendrapara, who passed the impugned order under Annexure-3.

The petitioners challenged that order, contending that the Collector lacked original jurisdiction under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (“OPLE Act”), and that they had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Whether the Collector had jurisdiction under the OPLE Act to pass the impugned order in the first instance.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the impugned order was allegedly made without jurisdiction and without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Under Section 7(1) of the OPLE Act, the Tahasildar may evict a person in unauthorised occupation after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity to remove the encroachment.

Section 12(1) provides an appeal from a Tahasildar’s decision or order to the Sub-Divisional Officer, while Section 12(2) vests revisional power in the Collector.

The Act thus assigns original action to the Tahasildar and provides statutory appellate and revisional forums.

A writ may be maintained where an authority has acted without jurisdiction and the affected party has been denied an opportunity and the statutory forums to challenge the action.

The Collector had exercised original jurisdiction, although the OPLE Act assigns the relevant eviction function to the Tahasildar and gives the Collector revisional—not original—power.

The order also did not establish that the petitioners had been given notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Because the Collector’s action was beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Act and deprived the petitioners of the statutory routes of appeal and revision, the Court held that the writ petition was maintainable.

It remitted the matter to the Tahasildar, Kendrapara, to decide the grievance in accordance with law after giving both parties advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The show-cause notice issued to the petitioners under Annexure-1 was also quashed, and the Tahasildar was directed to dispose of the proceeding within thirty days of the parties’ appearance.