Widow’s Challenge to Government-Land Appeal Fails as Orissa HC Finds It Was Already Disposed of in 2023

The petitioner’s late husband had challenged a Tahasildar’s order/notice concerning occupation of Government land in Bhagwanpur. In Encroachment Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022, the Sub-Collector disposed of the appeal on 29 April 2023, observing that the General Administration Department was competent to consider settlement of the land.

The petitioner’s husband later filed W.P.(C) No. 9327 of 2023 seeking early disposal of that appeal; the High Court’s order of 10 May 2023 directed expedition and interim status quo, although the appeal had already been disposed of. In 2025, the petitioner again sought disposal of the appeal. After reconstructing the record, the Sub-Collector traced the original file, found the earlier disposal order, and dropped the reconstructed proceeding on 11 September 2026. The petitioner then sought to quash the Sub-Collector’s orders in the present writ petition.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying appeal was brought under Section 12 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act).

The Court applied the principle that a matter already decided cannot be adjudicated a second time through a parallel or reconstructed proceeding.

It also recognised that the petitioner could seek redress before an appropriate forum, including the revisional forum, concerning the earlier appeal order.

The Sub-Collector’s original order had disposed of the appeal on 29 April 2023. Once the original appeal record was traced, the reconstructed proceeding could not properly continue as a second adjudication of the same appeal; the Sub-Collector therefore dropped it.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s renewed request concerned an appeal already disposed of, and found no basis to grant writ relief against the 11 September 2026 order.

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner’s claim to settlement of the land, leaving that grievance open to be raised before an appropriate forum.

No costs were imposed, having regard to the petitioner’s circumstances, and she was left at liberty to approach an appropriate forum, including the revisional forum, for redress.