PRADEEP KUMAR PATTNAIK SHYAMANANDA MOHARANA, A.K.SAHOO vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/4596/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010009652026

Filing Number

WP(C)/604/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/4596/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice K.r.mohapatra , Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Coram

Mr. Justice K.r.mohapatra , Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 20 )

Sub-Category

ORISSA GOVT. LAND SETTLEMENT ACT ( 13 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 26-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRADEEP KUMAR PATTNAIK SHYAMANANDA MOHARANA, A.K.SAHOO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.TAHASILDAR,ATHAGARH,CUTTACK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice K.r.mohapatra,mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar MishraView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik seeking mandamus to settle 1.50 acres of government land in his favour. The court found that the petitioner was attempting to misuse court proceedings to grab government land, particularly because he failed to appeal the 1993 encroachment case closure order within 33 years. No costs were imposed due to the petitioner's poor financial condition, but the court warned against further misuse of court processes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice K.r.mohapatra , Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra

  4. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/4596/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik seeking mandamus to settle 1.50 acres of government land in his favour. The court found that the petitioner was attempting to misuse court proceedings to grab government land, particularly because he failed to appeal the 1993 encroachment case closure order within 33 years. No costs were imposed due to the petitioner's poor financial condition, but the court warned against further misuse of court processes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case