Disposed¶27

Subit Kumar Acharya v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 May 2026WP(C)/3050/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four Odisha High Court writ petitions disposed of regarding threatened demolition/eviction of petitioners' buildings/constructions by Bargarh Municipality; Municipality undertook no demolition/eviction without due opportunity of hearing; Court directed the concerned authority to grant hearing with opportunity to file show-cause reply, in accordance with law, before eviction/demolition. Keywords: demolition; eviction; show-cause reply; opportunity of hearing; Bargarh Municipality; disposed of; W.P.(C) 2026.

What did the court decide?

Due opportunity of hearing, including opportunity to file show-cause reply, to all concerned in accordance with law, to be granted by the concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality before proceeding for eviction/demolition of the Petitioners' buildings/constructions. ¶27

Subit Kumar Acharya Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality is required to grant due opportunity of hearing, including opportunity to file show-cause reply, to all concerned in accordance with law before proceeding for eviction/demolition of the Petitioners' buildings/constructions.

¶27

Court's answer

Recording the submission of Mr. Agarwala, learned Senior Counsel for Bargarh Municipality, that the Petitioners' buildings/constructions will not be demolished/evicted without due opportunity of hearing, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with the observation that the concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality shall grant due opportunity of hearing to all concerned before proceeding for their eviction/demolition.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The due opportunity of hearing to be granted by the concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality shall include opportunity to file show-cause reply, to all concerned, in accordance with law, before proceeding for their eviction/demolition.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 3050, 3057, 3210 and 3220 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice B.P. Routray, disposed of on 06.05.2026): Petitioners Subit Kumar Acharya, Kishore Kumar Agrawal, Punam Chand Lath and Santoshini Nayak faced apprehended demolition/eviction of their buildings/constructions by Bargarh Municipality. Upon the fair submission, upon instruction, of the Municipality's Senior Counsel (Mr. G. Agarwala) that the constructions would not be demolished/evicted without granting due opportunity of hearing to concerned parties, the Court disposed of the petitions with the observation that the concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality shall grant due opportunity of hearing, including opportunity to file show-cause reply, to all concerned in accordance with law before proceeding for their eviction/demolition.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-May-2026 19:30:55

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 3050, 3057, 3210 and 3220 of 2026

¶4

In W.P.(C) No.3050 of 2026

¶5

Subit Kumar Acharya …. Petitioner Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.R.Jena, AGA Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality In W.P.(C) No.3057 of 2026 Kishore Kumar Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

¶8

Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality In W.P.(C) No.3057 of 2026

¶9

-versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.R.Jena, AGA Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality In W.P.(C) No.3210 of 2026 Punam Chand Lath …. Petitioner Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

¶10

Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality In W.P.(C) No.3210 of 2026

¶11

-versus-

¶12

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.R.Jena, AGA

¶13

Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality In W.P.(C) No.3220 of 2026

¶14

Santoshini Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

¶15

-versus-

¶16

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.R.Jena, AGA Mr. G.Agarwala, Sr.Advocate for Bargarh Municipality

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-May-2026 19:30:55

ORDER 06.05.2026

Order No.

Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Agarwala, learned Senior Counsel for Bargarh Municipality and Mr. Jena, learned AGA.

¶26

Mr. Agarwala, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Bargarh Municipality, fairly submits upon instruction that, the buildings/ constructions of the Petitioners will not be demolished/evicted without granting due opportunity of hearing to concerned parties.

¶27

Recording such submission of Mr. Agarwala, learned Senior Counsel, the writ petitions are disposed of with observation that concerned authority of Bargarh Municipality shall grant due opportunity of hearing within such period, including opportunity to file show-cause reply, to all concerned in accordance with law before proceeding for their eviction/demolition,.

¶28

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶29

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶30

S.Das

Subit Kumar Acharya v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subit Kumar Acharya v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chakradhar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Anupama Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Samal Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Punam Chand Lath Vs State of Odisha

Nathuram Lath Vs State of Odisha