Disposed¶21

Pandaba Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Jul 2026WP(C)/8996/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus-style direction to dispose of pending representation; application dated 10.02.2026 under Annexure-3; Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Commissioner, OP No.4); Joint Director of Estates-cum-Addl. Secretary (OP No.2); eviction of encroachers from village land; petitioner characterised as whistleblower and meddlesome interloper; 15-day compliance timeline from certified copy; disposed of without merits; W.P.(C) No.8996 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; single-judge order dated 27.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.4) to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure-3), to be completed within 15 days of presentation of a certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of without adjudication on merits. ¶21

Pandaba Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct Opposite Party No.2 (Joint Director of Estates-cum-Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha) and/or Opposite Party No.4 (Commissioner, B.M.C) to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure-3).

¶16

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court directed the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.4) to act upon the representation filed by the petitioner.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The exercise of acting upon the representation was to be completed within 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the petitioner is a whistleblower and a meddlesome interloper who approached the Court for eviction of persons allegedly illegally encroaching part of the village land and creating an unpleasant situation for villagers; the Court expressly did not go into the merits.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.8996 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi J., order dated 27.07.2026): Pandaba Sahoo sought a direction to Opposite Party No.2 (Joint Director of Estates-cum-Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha) and Opposite Party No.4 (Commissioner, B.M.C) to dispose of his application dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure-3) concerning alleged illegal encroachment of part of the village land. Having noted that the grievance was already pending before the Commissioner, B.M.C, and without going into the merits — while observing that the petitioner was 'a whistleblower and meddlesome Interloper' — the Court directed the Commissioner, B.M.C to act upon the representation, completing the exercise within 15 days of presentation of a certified copy of the order, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8996 of 2026

¶2

Pandaba Sahoo

¶3

.... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Samantaray,

¶5

Advoate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order No.

27.07.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has sought for a

¶16

direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.2/ The Joint Director of Estates -Cum- Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha & Opposite Party No.4/ The Commissioner, B.M.C, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to dispose of his application dated 10.02.2026 under Annexure-3.

¶17

3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that before approaching this Court, the Petitioner has already ventilated his grievance before the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation/ Opposite Party No.4 by way of the representation dated 10.02.2026 vide Annexure-3. He further submits that the said grievance of the Petitioner is still pending.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 17:14:05

¶20

4. He, accordingly, prays that a direction may be issued to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation/ Opposite Party No.4 for consideration of the said grievance of the Petitioner. 5. Considering the submission of the Petitioner and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court finds that the petitioner is a whistleblower and meddlesome Interloper in the present case who has approached this Court for eviction of some part of the village land illegally encroached by some encroachers who is creating unpleasant situation for the villagers. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation/ Opposite Party No.4 to act upon the representation filed by the present Petitioner. The same exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

6. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶23

Gitanjali

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 17:14:05

Pandaba Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandaba Sahoo 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

Sudhansu Digal Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Tikenani Kumbhar Vs State of Odisha

Rabi Mahakhud Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Akrura Das Vs State of Odisha