SUDARSAN JUADI DWARIKA PRASAD MOHANTY, T.K.MOHANTY, P.K.SWAIN, M.PAL, R.MOHANTY vs THE TAHASILDAR, BARGARH — WP(C)/5308/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010090882026

Filing Number

WP(C)/5119/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/5308/2026

Registration Date

13-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sashikanta Mishra

Coram

Mr. Justice Sashikanta Mishra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 20 )

Sub-Category

ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT.1960 ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUDARSAN JUADI DWARIKA PRASAD MOHANTY, T.K.MOHANTY, P.K.SWAIN, M.PAL, R.MOHANTY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE TAHASILDAR, BARGARH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Sashikanta MishraView PDF

    The High Court of Orissa directed the Tahasildar, Bargarh to dispose of an OLR-4(1)(i) case (registered as Case No.20/2024) within two months, as the case had remained pending without disposal despite being initiated suo-motu under the Second Amendment Act, 2023. The court found that the Tahasildar's order lacked proper dating and the case had not been progressed, warranting judicial intervention to ensure timely resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Sashikanta Mishra

  4. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/5308/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa directed the Tahasildar, Bargarh to dispose of an OLR-4(1)(i) case (registered as Case No.20/2024) within two months, as the case had remained pending without disposal despite being initiated suo-motu under the Second Amendment Act, 2023. The court found that the Tahasildar's order lacked proper dating and the case had not been progressed, warranting judicial intervention to ensure timely resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case