Cuttack: The Orissa high court’s vacation court has granted temporary relief to a group of land occupants at Pathargadia in Bhubaneswar by directing maintenance of status quo over more than nine acres of disputed land. It asked them to pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act.Vacation judge Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo passed identical orders while hearing 13 separate petitions on June 2 and June 5. The petitioners challenged eviction notices issued by the additional tehsildar, Bhubaneswar, on May 5, 2026, in proceedings initiated under the OPLE Act, 1972, and Rules, 1985.The disputed properties are located in Pathargadia, a fast-growing suburban area on the northern fringes of the city near Patia and Sundarpur. The land parcels under dispute ranged between 50 and 90 decimals each, with the cumulative area of 9.2 acres.Appearing for the petitioners, counsels argued that their clients were in possession of the respective plots for long periods, varying from 12 years to as much as 30 years. They sought the high court’s intervention against the eviction notices, contending that the occupants were facing imminent displacement from lands they were holding for decades.The state govt opposed the petitions, maintaining that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the OPLE Act provides a specific appellate mechanism. Govt counsel submitted that any person aggrieved by an order passed in encroachment proceedings could approach the competent appellate authority, sub-collector Bhubaneswar, in the present cases, for relief.Taking note of the submissions, Justice Sahoo declined to examine the merits of the disputes at this stage and directed the petitioners to avail themselves of the statutory remedy.As an interim measure, the judge ordered that the “nature, character, ownership and possession” of the lands under occupation of the petitioners in Pathargadia mouza be maintained by all parties till July 17, providing temporary protection against any change in the existing status of the disputed properties.In identical orders on all the petitions, the vacation court said, “In view of the submissions, it is directed that the petitioner, if so advised, shall approach the higher authority in appeal against the order, if any, passed against him in the OPLE proceeding.”The vacation judge directed that appeals be filed by June 29 and observed that the appellate authority should consider applications for interim protection in accordance with law.
