Disposed

Duryodhan Sahoo v. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Bmc), Bhubaneswar

Orissa HC23 Feb 2026WP(C)/3386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where a writ petition seeks enforcement of an Apex Court judgment regarding illegal construction and municipal services but the petitioner's representation on the grievance remains pending, the appropriate course is for the competent municipal authority to take a decision on that representation within a fixed time after affording hearing to the petitioner and all affected parties; the court expresses no opinion on the merits or the applicability of the Apex Court precedent. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BMC Commissioner to decide petitioner's pending representation dated 12.11.2025 within six weeks, with hearing to petitioner and affected parties.

Duryodhan Sahoo Vs Bhubaneswar Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3386 of 2026

¶2

Duryodhan Sahoo

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. R.K. Rout, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. Bhubaneswar Municipal …. Opposite Parties Corporation (BMC) represented through its Municipal Commissioner, Bhubaneswar

¶7

2. Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), represented through its Secretary, Bhubaneswar

¶8

3. Ahalya Construction

¶9

4. Minakshi Mattagaj

¶10

5. Nirupama Panda

¶11

6. Ashisa Mohapatra

¶12

7. Mihir Bala Choudhry

¶13

8. Pankaj Kumar Mandal

¶14

9. Kalpana Ganguly

¶15

10. Prahallad Karan

¶16

11. Subhashree Mohanty

¶17

12. Sumanta Kumar Panda

¶18

13. Baisalini Dash

¶19

14. Ashish Kumar Panda

¶20

15. Ashish Pradhan 16. Nibedita Pradhan

¶21

17. Ranjita Pradhan

¶22

18. Arun Kumar Panigrahi

¶23

19. Deepak Kumar Nayak 20. A Srinivas Patra

¶24

21. Surya Narayan Panigrahy

¶25

22. Suchismita Samanatara

¶26

23. Nilakantha Mohanty 24. Jayshree Mohanty 25. Anuja Kumar Acharya 26. Rajalakshmi Satapathy

¶27

Page 1 of 6

¶28

27. Samapika Dash 28. Puppala Dev Venkat Ramchander 29. Suprava Nanda 30. Sarthak Kumar Rath 31. Susanta Kumar Sethy 32. Chinmayee Bihari 33. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo 34. Arnapurna Mishra 35. Susil Kumar Mishra 36. Subhasmita Mishra 37. Ruchika Samanaray 38. Nalinakanta Sahoo 39. Tapaswini Behera 40. Banashree Jena 41. Abantibala Sahoo 42. Saswati Mishra

¶29

43. Sukanti Behera

¶30

44. Bharati Manjari Das

¶31

45. Hemanta Kumar Dutta

¶32

46. Debasis Das 47. Babuli Kumar Sahani

¶33

48. Sasmita Tripathy 49. Rakesh Samanta 50. Amon Ratnakar Suryawanshi 51. Mohani Sahoo 52. Dibakar Sahoo 53. Pravakar Sahoo 54. Bhaskar Sahoo 55. Subrat Kumar Sahoo

¶34

SI. No. -4 to 55 are residing at “Ahalya Place” MouzaGadakana, At: VillRangamatia, PO-Mancheswar Railway Colony, PS- Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda

¶35

Mr. N. Panda, Advocate

¶36

Page 2 of 6

¶37

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶38

ORDER 23.02.2026

¶39

Order No.

¶40

1. Learned counsel Mr. N. Panda submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC), Bhubaneswar.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.

¶42

The present writ petition has been filed relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767 . For convenience of reference, the relief sought for is extracted hereunder:-

¶43

“The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Opposite Party No.-1 to cancel and withdraw the holding numbers illegally granted to flats/occupants in the apartment known as “Ahalya Palace” (constructed over Plot Nos.822-827, Khata Nos.4346, 3088 & 1739, Mouza-Gadakana) Opp. Party No.-3 and why a writ/order directing Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.-1 (BMC), to immediately discontinue and withdraw all municipal

¶44

Page 3 of 6

¶45

services and civic amenities (including but not limited to garbage collection, water supply, sewerage, collection of property tax, trade licenses etc.) being provided to the said illegally constructed apartments occupied by Opp. Party No.-13 to 55 and a direction may be given to the Opposite Party Nos.-1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the promoter (Opposite Party No.3) for constructing the apartment without lawful access road and without submission of Completion Certificate and for any misrepresentation of fact to the statutory authorities to direct the Opposite Parties to ensure that the Petitioner’s property (Plot Nos.1221-1224, Khata No.4689) is not shown, used or treated as a road or otherwise interfered with, and that the Status Quo in respect of the Petitioner’s land as ordered by the competent Court/Authority is maintained.”

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, there is glaring violations and since the judgment is binding in terms of Article 141 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the Courts to implement the orders of the Apex Court, any violation of such order has to be viewed seriously.

¶47

Reliance is also placed on the order passed by the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal At Bhubaneswar dated 30.01.2026 in OREAT Appeal

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

No.40 of 2023 which according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner had attained finality.

¶50

Learned counsel Mr. Panda on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 submits that there are inter se dispute between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3, in respect of which Civil Suit No.1859 of 2017 is pending.

¶51

Referring to the litigation inter se between the parties, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 that inter se dispute between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 is sought to be addressed through the aegis of this Court in the garb of seeking implementation of the order of the Apex Court.

¶52

Be that as it may, since ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has preferred a representation dated 12.11.2025 at Annexure-11 which is stated to be pending, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be subserved if the Opposite Party No.1Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) is called upon to take a decision regarding the grievance of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the copy of the order of this Court along with the copy of the writ petition.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

It is needless to mention here that this Court

¶55

has not expressed any view regarding the veracity of the claim in the representation / W.P.(C) nor regarding the applicability of the judgment of the Apex Court in the factual matrix of the case at hand.

¶56

Before passing any order, the Opposite Party No.1-Commisioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) shall do well to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and to all the affected parties who are on record in the case at hand. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the parties.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶58

(V. Narasingh)

¶59

Ayesha Judge

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Feb-2026 11:11:12

¶62

Page 6 of 6

Duryodhan Sahoo v. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Bmc), Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duryodhan Sahoo v. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Bmc), Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibek Ku.Tekeriwal Vs State

Jitendra Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

R.Akash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Yudhistira Kuldeep Vs State

Prasanna Bagh Vs State

Madana Mukhi Vs State of Odisha