B.Babu Rao Vs the State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8829 of 2026

¶3

1. B. Babu Rao … Petitioners

¶4

D. Arjun Rao
3. D. Trinath
4. D. Loknath
5. Sri Surendra
Panigrahi

¶5

Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties 2. The Director Municipal Administration and ExOfficio Additional Secy. Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Odisha. 3. The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Berhampur 4. The Collector-cumDistrict Magistrate, Ganjam

¶8

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶10

Order No.

¶11

16.04.2026

¶12

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

The Petitioners claiming to be inhabitants of Samantiapalli village under the Samantiapalli Grama Panchayat, have filed the present writ application, inter alia, assailing the notification dated 22.12.2025 issued by the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department by which, a part of Samantiapalli has been notified as NAC i.e. from Samantiapalli Indian Oil filling Station to SBP College and the the rest part continues as Grama Panchayat.

¶15

2A. It is stated that the same is not in consonance with the relevant provisions of clause (2) of article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, read with sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950.

¶16

The relief sought for is extracted hereunder for convenience of ready reference:

¶17

“ xxx xxx xxx

¶18

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause; as to why the division of the Samanatiapalli village under Samanatiapalli Grama Panchayat into two parts i.e from (Samantiapalli Indian Oil Filling Station to SBP College) under Patrapur NAC in exclusion of other part of the Samantiapalli village kept under Samantiapalli Grama Panchayat should not be declared as illegal and set aside.

¶19

AND

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule Nisi may be made absolute and upon hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon' ble Court be further pleased to quash the notification dt 22.12.25 under Annexure 1 series so far the division of the Samanatiapalli Village under Samanatiapalli Grama Panchayat into two parts i.e from (Samantiapalli Indian Oil Filling Station to SEP College) under Patrapur NAC in exclusion of other part of the same village i.e Samantiapalli village keeping the said village under Samantiapalli Grama Panchayat.

¶22

xxx xxx xxx”

¶23

It is stated that ventilating their grievance the Petitioners have preferred representation, at Annexure-3.

¶24

On perusal of the same, it is seen that such representation is also submitted to the concerned officials i.e. the Director Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio Additional Secy. Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Odisha (Opposite Party No.2) and alleging inaction in the matter of consideration of the same, the present writ application has been filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that on a bare perusal of the notification (Annexure-1), it is abudantly clear that no objection or suggestion has been received in respect of the draft, a notification by the learned District Magistrate within the stipulated period. As such, there is no illegality

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

in the bifurcation as has been done. The same has been done, keeping in view the ingredients which has been specifically mentioned in the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.

¶28

Hence, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

Be that as it may, since the grievance of the Petitioners is pending before the Authority including the Opposite Party No.2, this Court is persuaded to hold that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the said Opposite Party is directed to take a decision in the matter and communicate the same with the expediency it deserves. Preferably, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶30

It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the claims.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. U.C.C. as per the rules.

¶32

(V. NARASINGH)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Soumya Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 18:56:48

¶36

Page 4 of 4

B.Babu Rao v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Babu Rao v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsinghpur Bar Association, Cuttack Vs Bar Council of INDIA,21,DELHI

Gajapati Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Barik Vs the State of Odisha

Ranjit Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Sibaram Biswal Vs Collector Khurda