The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.1440 of 2008 Dhaneswar Ray (since dead) through his LRs -versus- …. Petitioners State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - Mr. N. P. Parija. Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel. None (for O.P. No.4)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :09.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure- 10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) as well as the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack (O.P. No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the case land was recorded by the Consolidation Authorities in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the Page 1 of 8 order dated 22.09.1975 passed in OLR Case No.223 of 1975 under Section 36-A of the OLR Act, 1960. The O.P. No.4 in this writ petition i.e. Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga challenged to the said order dated 22.09.1975 passed in OLR Case NO.223 of 1975 under Section 36-A of the OLR Act, 1960 by the Revenue Officer, Kujang in favour of the petitioner i.e. Dhaneswar Ray by filing an OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 under Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 in the Court of Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack praying for referring the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue in terms of Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 for adjudication of the same in order to pass an order for recording of the case land in the name of Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga after correcting the name of the petitioner from the same. 3. In OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 under Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 before the Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga was the petitioner and Dhaneswar Ray was the O.P. 4. After hearing from both the sides, as per final order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997, the Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) referred the case to the Member, Board of Revenue, Page 2 of 8 Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) in terms of Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 for adjudication. 5. On the basis of such reference made in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 passed on dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10), a case vide OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001 was initiated before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2). 6. After hearing of the said OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001, the O.P. No.2 as per its order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) set aside to the order dated 22.09.1975 passed in OLR Case No.223 of 1975 under Section 36-A of the OLR Act, 1960 in favour of the petitioner and “directed to the Tahasildar, Tirtol to correct the R.o.R. of the suit land from the name of the petitioner in the Consolidation R.o.R. and to record the same in the Anabadi Khata of the State Government stating that, Tahasildar should evict the petitioner (Dhaneswar Ray) and his successors-in-interest from the suit land and to take over the possession of the same.” 7. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) as well as to the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Page 3 of 8 Case No.62 of 2001 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack (O.P. No.2). 8. When during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Dhaneswar Ray expired, then in his place, his LRs were substituted. 9. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, as none had appeared from the side of O.P. No.4 for participating in the hearing of the writ petition. 10. In OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 under Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960, Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga being the petitioner had made a prayer for referring their case to the O.P. No.2 in terms of Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 for recording of the case land in the name of Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga correcting the same from the name of Dhaneswar Ray (petitioner in this writ petition). The Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) had allowed the above revision i.e. OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 of Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga and referred the case to the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack as per Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1960 for its decision assigning the reasons that, “the suit land had vested in Government.” Page 4 of 8 Then, in the judgment dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11), the O.P. No.2 had answered the above reference made by the O.P. No.3 quashing the order dated 22.09.1975 passed by the Revenue Officer, Kujang in OLR Case No.223 of 1975 under Section 36-A of the OLR Act, 1960 and directed to the Tahasildar, Tirtol for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land in the Consolidation R.o.R. from the name of Dhaneswar Ray and to record the same under Anabadi Khata of the Government. 11. It is well evident from the order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 that, Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga (O.P. No.4) had filed such revision praying for recording the case land in the name of Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga correcting the same from the name of Dhaneswar Ray. But, as per the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001, the O.P. No.2 directed for recording the case land in the name of the State Government, but neither in the name of Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga nor in the name of the petitioner (Dhaneswar Ray) and accordingly, as per the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR- RC Case No.62 of 2001, the O.P. No.2 created a third case, which was not the case of either party i.e. either Sri Sri Gopinath Jew and Raghunath Jew Bije, Kujanga (O.P. No.4) or Dhaneswar Ray without apprising any Page 5 of 8 of the parties thereof to have their say about the intention of the O.P. No.2 for recording the case land in the name of the third party i.e. Government. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (I) In a case between Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Others reported in IV (2008) Civ.L.T. 276 (SC) (Para Nos.9, 10 &12) that, a Court cannot make out a case not pleaded by the parties. The Court should confine its decision to the question raised in the pleadings. (II) In a case between Chanchal Kumar Bera @ Chanchal Bera & Others Vs. Additional Commissioner Settlement & Consolidation Balasore, District: Balasore & Others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 861 that, the Court or adjudicating authority has no authority under law to make out a third case, which is not the case of either party for recording the case land in the name of the State of Odisha. (III) In a case between Deepak Ananda Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided in Civil Appeal Nos.88-89 of 2023 (Para No.17) that, If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that, no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. Page 6 of 8 The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. 12. When in the impugned order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed by the O.P. No.3 and in the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed by the O.P. No.2, a third case has been created, which was the case of no party without inviting any show-cause from the parties to meet the intention of the O.P. No.2 about the creation of a third case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is to be held that, the impugned order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) as well as the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) as not sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Decision
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Page 7 of 8 14. The impugned order dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10) passed in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) as well as the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-11) passed in OLR-RC Case No.62 of 2001 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) are set aside. The OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 is remitted back to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) for the disposal of the same afresh as per law on the basis of the aforesaid observations within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties in this writ petition to have their say in writing as well as verbally in full compliance of the principles of natural justice. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa (O.P. No.3) in OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 on 05.01.2026 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the O.P. No.3 as to further proceedings of the OLR Revision Petition No.4 of 1997 and to file the certified copy of this judgment 15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 23.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Signature Not Verified Junior Stenographer Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 8 of 8