Dismissed¶25

Binod Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Jan 2026WP(C)/185/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Binod Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.; W.P.(C) No. 185 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 07.01.2026; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi. Preponement (30.01.2026 to 09.01.2026) of the hearing date of Encroachment Appeal No.25/2025 by the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur held not challengeable before the writ court; writ petition dismissed. Keywords: encroachment appeal; eviction notice; Tahasildar, Naugaon; hearing date change; writ jurisdiction; maintainability.

What did the court decide?

A change in the date of hearing of an appeal effected by administrative officers, attributed to their engagement in administrative work, is not a subject matter to challenge before the writ court. ¶24

Binod Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 185 of 2026

¶3

Binod Kumar Nayak

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

……. Opposite Party(s)

¶9

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

07.01.2026

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.12.2025 issued by the Opposite Party No.3/SubCollector, Jagatsinghpur preponing the date of hearing of the Encroachment Appeal No.25/2025 vide Annexure-6.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has preferred an appeal vide Encroachment Appeal No.25/2025 against the eviction notice dated 27.11.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Naugaon which has been fixed for hearing on 30.01.2026. He further submits that the Petitioner has received a notice on 03.01.2026 from the Office of the Opposite Party No.3 that the date of hearing has been fixed to 09.01.2026 without

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Jan-2026 16:24:53

¶22

¶23

assigning any reason. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶24

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that since there is likelihood of busy of the Administrative Officers in administrative work, he/she might have change the date of hearing of the appeal which is not a subject matter to challenge before the writ Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.

¶25

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶26

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶27

Murmu

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Jan-2026 16:24:53

Binod Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Ratikanta Satapathy Vs Union of India

Puspita Nanda Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Pramod Sahu Vs Shgp Singh,D.G Crpf, Newdelhi

Jadumani Das Vs State of Odisha

Nirmala Das Vs the Sub Collector, Jagatsinghpur

Amalendu Dash Vs State of Odisha