AMARENDRA NATH MALLICK FASIUR RAHMAN MOLLA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/15354/2025

Case under West Bengal Land Reforms Act ,1955 Section NA. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-Jul-2025

CNR: WBCHCA0297792025

Filing Number

WPA/14558/2025

Filing Date

30-Jun-2025

Registration No

WPA/15354/2025

Registration Date

08-Jul-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Land Reforms Act ,1955 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMARENDRA NATH MALLICK FASIUR RAHMAN MOLLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

    The writ petition filed by Amarendra Nath Mallick was dismissed for default on 10-06-2026 as the petitioner failed to appear or seek representation at the time of hearing. The court noted that while the State and respondent no.6 were represented, respondent no.6's counsel submitted that compensation had already been paid to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Dec-2025

    New Motion - 3

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  4. 04-Aug-2025

    New Motion 1

    Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

  5. 15-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/15354/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The writ petition filed by Amarendra Nath Mallick was dismissed for default on 10-06-2026 as the petitioner failed to appear or seek representation at the time of hearing. The court noted that while the State and respondent no.6 were represented, respondent no.6's counsel submitted that compensation had already been paid to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case