Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3214

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Savitri Ratho, J
DEBI PRASANNA PATTANAIK @ DEBI PRASDA PATTNAIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
CRLMP 418 / 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rabi Narayan Mohanty
For the Respondents: S.K. Rout

A writ court will not exercise jurisdiction to grant police protection for property entry when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature regarding title or possession, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction - Police protection - Property dispute - Petitioner seeking police assistance to enter land where possession is contested - Where a dispute is primarily civil in nature and involves issues of ownership or possession of immovable property, the writ court should not intervene by directing the state authorities to provide police protection, as such intervention would amount to granting substantive relief without adjudication by a competent civil court.

(B) Police - Duties - Function of the police is primarily to maintain law and order - Police authorities should not be used as an enforcement agency to resolve or facilitate private claims in matters of property possession when the civil nature of the dispute is evident.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction from the court to provide police protection to enter his own landed property. The petitioner alleged that a potential buyer, after failing to complete the sale transaction, illegally restrained the petitioner from accessing the land along with others. Although a criminal report was filed with the police, the request for police protection to access the property was denied.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the core issue was a dispute over ownership and possession of property, which is purely civil in nature. The court held that it would not be a fit case for exercising writ jurisdiction to grant police protection, as this would bypass the necessary adjudication process in a competent civil court.

Issues: Whether the writ court can exercise its jurisdiction under the Constitution to direct police protection in disputes concerning the possession of immovable property that are essentially civil in character.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute is predominated by civil elements such as ownership and possession of property, the writ court must refrain from issuing directions for police protection. Such matters must be handled by the competent civil court, and police intervention should not be used as a proxy for enforcing civil rights in the absence of a legal decree.

Result: The petition was dismissed.

Savitri Ratho, J.

This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 to provide Police protection to the Petitioner to enter into his landed property situated at Mouza-Saradeipur.

The Petitioner has alleged that he and his family are the joint owners of landed property covered under Khata No.251/21, 251/1214 and 251/79 in Mouza-Saradeipur. He wanted to sell the aforesaid properties to one Raghunath Sahoo, for which the consideration amount was mutually fixed at Rs.11,20,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Crores and Twenty Lakhs only), out of which, said Raghunath Sahoo had initially paid an advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/-(Rupees forty lakhs only) upon a money receipt dated 31.12.2025 and thereafter paid an amount of Rs.60,30,000/-(Rupees Sixty lakhs and thirty thousand only) through online transactions on different dates to the Petitioner and other shareholders of the said property. After payment of the total advance amount of Rs. 1,00,30,000/-(Rupees one crore and thirty thousand only), Raghunath Sahoo neither showed interest to purchase the aforesaid property nor paid the balance consideration amount to the Petitioner. He started playing hide and seek with the Petitioner and his family members for which the Petitioner and his family members returned the entire advance money of Rs.1,00,30,000/- (Rupees one crore and thirty thousand only) to the bank account of said Raghunath Sahoo on different dates. Thereafter, the Petitioner along with his family members tried to enter into their aforesaid landed properties, but the said Raghunath Sahoo being accompanied with some hooligans restrained them illegally from entering into their landed property holding deadly weapons and threatened them, for which the Petitioner and his family members being the lawful owners of the aforesaid landed properties could not enter into their landed property. On 25.02.2026, the Petitioner and his family members got the information that said Raghunath Sahoo accompanied with some hooligans had illegally entered into their land and was digging earth by a JCB Machine to construct boundary wall and when the Petitioner and his family members reached there and tried to resist them, they were assaulted and threatened with dire consequence. Sister of the Petitioner appeared at Dhauli P.S and filed a written report against Raghunath Sahoo, which was registered as Dhauli P.S case No.37 dated 26.02.2026 for commission of offences under Sections 324(2)/ 115(2)/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS. On 01.03.2026, the Petitioner went to the Dhauli Police Station and requested that Police protection be provided to enable them to enter into their land, but the concerned Police refused to do so, for which the Petitioner sent a written representation to the IIC, Dhauli P.S. by post on 02.03.2026. This has been received by them on dated 11/03/2026, but no action was taken for which so the Petitioner ventilated his grievance to the DCP, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.4) through a written representation sent through speed post on 23/03/2026., but the Opp. party No.4 also has not taken any action.

SUBMISSIONS

I have heard Mr. Rabi Narayan Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

Mr. Rabi Narayan Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and his family are the legal owners of the landed property and had entered into an agreement with the said Raghunath Sahoo- who is a mischievous and anti-social person and who failed to perform his part of the contract. The payment made by him has been returned to him by the Petitioner but the said Raghunath Sahoo has illegally entered the aforesaid landed properties and prevented the Petitioner and his family member from enjoying peaceful possession. The Police authorities have knowingly and willfully erred and committed negligence and dereliction of duties by not extending police protection to the Petitioner and his family members to ente

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3214

ORISSA HIGH COURTSavitri Ratho, JDEBI PRASANNA PATTANAIK @ DEBI PRASDA PATTNAIK – AppellantVersusSTATE OF ODISHA – RespondentCRLMP 418 / 2026

A writ court will not exercise jurisdiction to grant police protection for property entry when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature regarding title or possession, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts.

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Savitri Ratho, J
DEBI PRASANNA PATTANAIK @ DEBI PRASDA PATTNAIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
CRLMP 418 / 2026