The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2025 16:46:21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Upendra Nayak W.P.(C). NO.2325 OF 2025 …. Petitioner Mr. Niranjan Panda, Advocate -versus- …. Opp. Parties State of Odisha and others Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 09.09.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated Order No. 06. 1. 2. 2nd September, 1987 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986 initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is son of late Hata Nayak, the Lessee. Said Hata Nayak belonged to village Suanga and is Bauri by caste, which comes under Scheduled Caste Category. Plot No.112 under Khata No.255 to an extent of Ac.0.100 dec. situated in mouza Suanga in the district of Khorda (for brevity ‘the case land’) was settled in favour of said Hata Nayak vide order dated 12th August, 1974 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in WL Lease Case No.49 of 1974. Since then, said Hata Nayak and his family members are occupying the case land. When the matter stood thus, Hata Nayak died on 18th May, 1983. But, the LRs of said Hata Nayak including the Petitioner continued to enjoy the case land and are in possession of the same till date. Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2025 16:46:21 Thereafter, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986 under Section 7-A(3) of the Act. Without serving notice either on the Lessee or his LRs, impugned order dated 2nd September, 1987 (Annexure-6) has been passed. The Petitioner and his family members had no occasion to know about the said order, as they were not served with any notice. Notice of the Lessee could not be served as he died much prior to the date of initiation of Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that consolidation operation started in the year 1987 and the Consolidation ROR was also prepared in the name of the Lessee, namely, Hata Nayak on 6th May, 1980. The Revisional Authority without verifying the same, passed the impugned order on 2nd September, 1987 (Annexure-6). Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-6 and to remit the matter to the Revisional Authority for fresh adjudication of the revision giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of grievance made by the Petitioner, this Court vide order dated 30th June, 2025, directed learned State Counsel to take instruction as to whether any notice was served on the Lessee, namely, Hata Nayak, in Revision Case No.421 of 1986. Several adjournments were taken on behalf of learned State Counsel. But, no definite instruction could be obtained from the concerned Authority. 5. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on instruction submits that presently, materials in support of sufficiency of notice on Hata nayak, the Lessee, is not available in the Office of learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. Thus, the same gives rise to a reasonable presumption that no notice Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2025 16:46:21 was ever served on Hata Nayak, the Lessee in Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court, without further delving into the merit of the case, holds that the impugned order under Annexure-6 is void ab initio for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to adjudicate Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986 initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Act afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected including the Petitioner and other LRs of Hata Nayak, the Lessee. 8. It appears from the record that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide his Letter No.20735 dated 18th August, 2025 intimated the Office of learned Advocate General, Odisha that after the death of Hata Nayak, the Lessee, his LRs, namely, Debaki Nayak, wife of Hata Nayak and the present Petitioner, namely, Upendra Nayak sold the case land to one Nabaghana Sethi by executing RSD dated 19th February, 1988 and Sri Sethi has already sold the same to one Indramani Kanungo vide RSD dated 19th March, 1989. Thereafter, one Smita Kanungo, wife of Bibekananda Kanungo purchased the case land from Indramani Kanungo vide RSD No.4397 dated 4th October, 2000 and got the case recorded in her name in Khata No.222/98 (Plot No.173 to an extent of Ac.0.100 dec). Thus, they should also be given an opportunity of hearing in the Revision Petition. 9. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar shall make an enquiry with regard to the persons likely to be affected, if the Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2025 16:46:21 adjudication is made in favour of the Petitioner and issue notice to them to participate in the hearing of Lease Revision Case No.421 of 1986. 10. It is also borne out from record that W.P.(C). No.28151 of 2013 was filed by the present Petitioner, which is disclosed in the certificate given in the writ petition. But, from the website, it appears that no order has been passed by this Court in the said writ petition. 11. As such, W.P.(C). No.28151 of 2013 be listed separately for consideration. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4