Orissa High Court
Una Ganesh Patro & Ors vs The State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20206 of 2025
Una Ganesh Patro & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok Das, Adv.
-versus-
The State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Pravu Prasanna Behera, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 23.07.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners claiming
themselves to be the owners of the disputed property in
question, have sought for a direction from this Court to the
Tahasildar, Buguda/ Opposite Party No.4 for not
demolishing their residential house standing over the
disputed property in question.
3. Heard.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
pertaining to the disputed property in question the
Petitioners had preferred a Civil Suit bearing C.S. No.232
of 2014 which was also allowed vide judgment dated 11th
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
judgment is extracted herein below:-
Date: 28-Jul-2025 16:59:06
" ORDER
The suit be and the same is decreed on contest
against the defendants, but without any cost. The
defendants are hereby permanently restrained from
demolishing any portion of the suit house situated
on the suit land or cause any damage to the plaintiffs
with respect to the same.
Pleaders fees as per contested scale."
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that
judgment passed in the above noted Civil Suit has not
been challenged till today. He also contends that despite
continuance of the judgment/order passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Bhanjanagar in the above noted Civil
Suit, the Tahasildar, Buguda/ Opposite Party No.4 has
directed for demolition of the houses of the Petitioners
standing over the disputed property in question through
mic announcement which action of the Tahasildar, Buguda
is per se illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that
before approaching this Court though the Petitioners on
the selfsame issue have already ventilated their grievances
before the Tahasildar, Buguda vide Annexure-3, no
decision has been taken on the said grievance of the
Petitioners till today. He, in the process, prays for allowing
the prayer made in this Writ Petition.
7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this
Date: 28-Jul-2025 16:59:06
Court is of the view that since the Petitioners have been
enjoying the judgment/order dated 11th September, 2017
passed in the above noted Civil Suit, the Tahasildar,
Buguda should not have directed for demolition of their
houses standing over the disputed property in question.
This Court, therefore, directs the Tahasildar, Buguda to
look into the grievance of the Petitioners vide Annexure-3
and pass a lawful order in the matter keeping in view the
judgment dated 11th September, 2017 passed in C.S. No.232
of 2014 within a period of two months from the date of
presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
8. The Tahasildar, Buguda is also directed to refrain
himself from undertaking any eviction driver through mic
announcement. It is also made clear that if there is
requirement of eviction of the Petitioners from the
disputed property in question, the Tahasildar, Buguda
shall adopt proper procedure as per law prior to
conducting the eviction drive.
9. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Jul-2025 16:59:06
