NANTA KATA SUJAY SHANKER SINGHDEO vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/21884/2023

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

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010530762023

e-Filing Number

11-07-2023

Filing Number

WP(C)/21884/2023

Filing Date

12-Jul-2023

Registration No

WP(C)/21884/2023

Registration Date

12-Jul-2023

Judge

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Coram

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

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.NANTA KATA SUJAY SHANKER SINGHDEO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.THE COLLECTOR, KALAHANDI

  3. 3.THE SUB-COLLECTOR, KALAHANDI

  4. 4.THE TAHASILDAR, KALAHANDI

  5. 5.THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BUDHIDARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Orissa directed the Tahasildar of Kalahandi at Junagarh to consider and dispose of the petitioner Nanda Kata's representation (filed on 02.06.2023) regarding land settlement within four weeks, and communicate the result within one week thereafter. The court did not grant the mandamus sought for immediate land restoration, instead requiring the administrative authority to process the representation according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

  4. 12-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/21884/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Orissa directed the Tahasildar of Kalahandi at Junagarh to consider and dispose of the petitioner Nanda Kata's representation (filed on 02.06.2023) regarding land settlement within four weeks, and communicate the result within one week thereafter. The court did not grant the mandamus sought for immediate land restoration, instead requiring the administrative authority to process the representation according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case