Orissa High Court
WP(C)/21397/2026 of GANESH CHANDRA PATRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 29 August 2026
of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21397 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010463352026 Ganesh Chandra Patra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Abinash Routray -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21397 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010463352026
Ganesh Chandra Patra
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.
- Abinash Routray
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. –
Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
29.08.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application. Issue a Rule Nissi calling upon the Opp.Parties to show- cause as to why the orders have given in Annexure- 7 shall not be quashed directing to hear the matter on the basis of the documents available without insisting for impleadment of the DFO and if the Opp.Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute quashing the Annexure- 7 and direct the opp. party no. 2 for hearing of the OSS Case No. 249/2025 within a stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble court.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.
3. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submits that the presence of DFO is not at all necessary for adjudication of the case. He further apprehends that because of impletion of the DFO, the matter may be delayed. Order No.
3. Page 2 of 2.
4. Ms. J. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submits that the DFO may have been impleaded to ascertain if the land in question is included in DLC list.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there being no material to show that the land was ever included in the DLC list, presence of the DFO is really not necessary. However, since the DFO has already been impleaded as per order dated 23.04.2026, this Court would not like to enter into the issue as it will lead to further delay in disposal of the matter.
6. In such view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of directing the Member, Board of Revenue to dispose of the Revision as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge Deepak Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 29-Aug-2026 15:22:29 Signature Not Verified