RAJENDRA KUMAR PATRO vs STATE OF ORISSA — WP(C)/31601/2025

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

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010788382025

Filing Number

WP(C)/45065/2025

Filing Date

31-Oct-2025

Registration No

WP(C)/31601/2025

Registration Date

07-Nov-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Coram

Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 20 )

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.RAJENDRA KUMAR PATRO

    Adv. SUSANTA KUMAR JETHY,B.DAS, R.PRADHAN,B.DAS, R.PRADHAN, B.DAS, R.PRADHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ORISSA

  2. 2.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF ODISHA

  3. 3.SUB REGISTRAR, KUKUDAKHANDI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Orissa directed Opposite Party No.3 (Sub-Registrar) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for document registration within eight weeks in accordance with law and a previous 2023 court order that had set aside a police letter blocking the registration. The court disposed of the writ petition, noting the government advocate had no serious objection to the directive and that no higher court had challenged the prior order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

  4. 31-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/31601/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Orissa directed Opposite Party No.3 (Sub-Registrar) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for document registration within eight weeks in accordance with law and a previous 2023 court order that had set aside a police letter blocking the registration. The court disposed of the writ petition, noting the government advocate had no serious objection to the directive and that no higher court had challenged the prior order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case