Orissa High Court

WP(C)/26186/2026 of BISWANATH BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 10 September 2026

of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26186 of 2026(PIL) CNR No.ODHC010599762026 Biswanath Behera …. Petitioner Mr. Pritam Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.26186 of 2026(PIL)

CNR No.ODHC010599762026

Biswanath Behera

….

Petitioner

Mr. Pritam Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

….

Opp. Parties

Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER

10.09.2026

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is one of the classical examples where the remedy in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is misused and abused by a person for settling his personal score. The said observation is fortified by the facts emanating from the instant Writ Petition, which reveal that the Kalyan Mandap has been constructed by the authority on private land. Admittedly, the Petitioner is neither the owner nor

Page 1 of 3

the occupier nor the settlee of the said land. The owner of the said land has not raised any objection, yet a third party having no right in respect of the said land is misusing the fiat of Public Interest Litigation.

3. The right to property is a constitutional right enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. A person who is the owner of the property has every right to protect his property and also deal with the same. A third person who has no semblance of right, title and interest in respect of the said property cannot use the tool of Public Interest Litigation and invite the attention of the Court that the Kalyan Mandap cannot be constructed thereat.

4. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the said construction was made after obtaining no objection from the owner of the said land, yet, without taking into account the aforesaid fact, we find that the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the Public Interest Litigation in this regard. There is no infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, nor of the constitutional right emanating from Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a third party raising a concern which

Page 2 of 3

impedes the right to property enjoyed by the rightful owner, such frivolous Public Interest Litigation deserves dismissal with exemplary costs.

5. The Petition is dismissed with costs of ₹50,000/-, to be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from the date of this order. In the event the said deposit is made, the same shall be kept in the account earmarked for Juveniles.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AKPradhan/Priyanka

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 15:25:40 Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead