BIGYAN KUMAR MALLICK vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/14771/2022

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

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010379082022

Filing Number

WP(C)/14771/2022

Filing Date

10-Jun-2022

Registration No

WP(C)/14771/2022

Registration Date

10-Jun-2022

Judge

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Coram

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

EVICTION UNDER THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION) ACT ( 12 )

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.BIGYAN KUMAR MALLICK

    Adv. PRADEEP KUMAR MOHANTY,P.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.NAYAK,P.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.NAYAK, P.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.NAYAK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.SECY, BDA

  3. 3.THE SECY, BMC

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF

    The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Bigyan Kumar Mallick seeking recognition of his possession over a government plot and a mandate to allow him to remain there. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide essential details about the nature, source, and manner of acquisition of his possession, and noted that an eviction action had already been initiated against him for occupying government land. The court directed the petitioner to establish his right, title, and possession through an appropriate civil court proceeding rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Aug-2023

    For Removal Of Defects

    Deputy Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 10-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/14771/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Bigyan Kumar Mallick seeking recognition of his possession over a government plot and a mandate to allow him to remain there. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide essential details about the nature, source, and manner of acquisition of his possession, and noted that an eviction action had already been initiated against him for occupying government land. The court directed the petitioner to establish his right, title, and possession through an appropriate civil court proceeding rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case