IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34603 of 2025 Rudra Narayan Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

08.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned AGA for the State.

2. Notices to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with since the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 27^th October, 2025 as at Annexure-4 followed by a reminder vide Annexure-5 on the grounds stated.

4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the Municipality with a representation as at Annexure-2 for construction of road and drainage system and thereafter, the impugned notices vide Annexures-4 and 5 have been issued. The submission is that the Municipality has directed the petitioner to remove the deposited soil alleging encroachment. According to Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel that there has been no encroachment as such, rather, the soil was deposited, subsequently, using the same, the road/passage has been made motorable and therefore, the impugned notice at Annexure-4 issued by the Municipality is illegal. Referring to Section 254 of the Orissa Municipality Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to a hearing by the Municipality as it has been envisaged under sub-section(2) thereof. In support of such contention, an order of this Court in Prakash Chandra Padhi and others Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2006(1) OLR 419 is placed reliance on to further submits that opportunity of hearing to the petitioner should be provided considering the plea that that there has been no any encroachment as alleged rather the road running in front of his house has been made motorable.

5. Recorded the submission of Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

6. Section 254 of the Act relates to removal of encroachment. According to the Municipality, the petitioner is alleged of encroachment as he deposited soil adjacent to his house. It is alleged that the said notice as per Annexure-4 has been antedated, as in the meantime, the soil was cleared to make the road properly usable. To consider, whether, it is a case of encroachment and any such attempt on the part of the petitioner to invite action in terms of Section 254 of the Act, the Court is of the view that he should be provided an opportunity of hearing to respond to Annexure-4 before any such further action is followed. In fact, this Court in Prakash Chandra Padhi (supra) held such a view that opportunity of hearing should be provided and also filing of show cause to any such notice Section 254 of the Act especially when referring to Annexure-3, it is submitted that there has been no such encroachment with the soil deposited by the petitioner as it was spread over to make the road motorable. Regard being had to the above defence of the petitioner and submission of Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for him referring to Section 254 of the Act and provision of hearing as per sub-Section (2) thereof, the Court reiterates that the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to reply to Annexures-4 and 5 to the show cause notice for a decision by opposite party No.3 without any course of action being taken during the interregnum as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that the petitioner shall appear before opposite party No.3 with a show cause filed responding to Annexure-4 within fifteen days from today and in the event, such a reply is received, it shall be dealt with as per and in accordance with law in terms of Section 254 of the Act and till such tim