The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2940 of 2015 Gopal Prasad Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. D. P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opp. Party Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 22.10.2025 08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.3146 of 2009 corresponding to Capital P.S. Case No.100 of 2005, registered on 22.03.2005. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that Sabik Plot No.517 under Sabik Khata No.164 in Mouza- Sampur, measuring an area of 17.470 dec., out of Sabik Plot No.224 measuring an area of 248.513 dec. and recorded as Bada Jungle, was originally held by Samindar
Legal Reasoning
Sri Madan Mohan Harichandan under the Malipada Zamindari. Upon abolition of the Zamindari by virtue of Notification No.2119-E.A. dated 24.08.1953 issued by the Government in Revenue Department, a case bearing No.160 of 1980 was instituted on 15.11.1980 by the Tahsildar on the basis of a petition filed by Late Premananda Mohapatra, father of the Petitioner, seeking recognition as tenant over Ac.17.470 dec. in Sabik Plot No.517 under Sabik Khata No.164 of Mouza-Sampur. As the same could not be settled in favour of the Petitioner’s father during settlement operations due to his absence from the village, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
Decision
disposed of the case on 05.05.1981. The operative part of the order reads as follows: “In view of the documentary evidences, such as Jamanbandi, rent receipts, and long possession, the petitioner, Premananda Mohapatra, son of Narsingh Mohapatra of Sailo Jharpada, is determined as tenant of the State in respect of the schedule land described in the application.” It further appears that on 05.09.1988, Mouza- Sampur came under the administrative control of the G.A. Department. Subsequently, on 10.01.1990, the Government in Revenue Department issued an executive instruction directing that – Page 2 of 9 “Cases which have already been entertained under Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act and are now pending for disposal should be dropped as being without jurisdiction of the Tahsildar or the concerned Revenue Officer. No such case should also be entertained under this section in future.” 4. In compliance with the order of the Tahsildar, the father of the Petitioner approached the A.D.M., Khurda, seeking a direction to the R.I. to accept rent from the Petitioner in terms of the order dated 05.05.1981 and to correct the R.O.R. accordingly. On 05.11.2002, O.E.A. Appeal No.02 of 2002 was instituted before the A.D.M., Khurda, who directed the Tahsildar to produce the original case record. On 03.05.2003, the A.D.M., Khurda disposed of the said appeal with an observation that – “In order to avoid delay, instead of waiting for the L.C.R., I am of the opinion that the the concerned Tahsildar should order dated 05.05.1981 passed by him in O.E.A. Case No.160 of 1980 and effect necessary corrections in the record for fiscal purposes and collect rent from the tenant.” implement 5. Subsequently, on 30.09.2003, the A.D.M., Khurda initiated a proceeding to recall his own order dated 20.05.2003, being satisfied that there had been Page 3 of 9 misrepresentation and suppression of material facts and that the Petitioner had obtained relief by relying on fabricated and fraudulent documents. On 23.10.2003, the A.D.M., Khurda recalled the order dated 20.05.2003. Thereafter, the Collector, Khurda moved the Board of Revenue, Odisha, and filed O.E.A. Revision Case No.79 of 2003 under Section 38-B of the O.E.A. Act, 1951, challenging the order dated 05.05.1981 passed in O.E.A. Misc. Case No.160 of 1980. During the revision, it was alleged that the Petitioner had defended his false claim through his advocate in a planned manner. Accordingly, the Joint Secretary to Government and Ex-Officio Director, Estates, lodged a report with the I.I.C., Capital P.S., alleging that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were forged and manufactured with the intention of grabbing valuable Government land in the Capital City worth crores of rupees. Based on the said report, F.I.R. was registered. 6. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Petitioner’s father had filed O.E.A. Case No.160 of 1980 before the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar, and after due hearing, an order was passed therein. He further submitted that though the A.D.M. recalled the order in appeal, the Page 4 of 9 observation of the Investigating Agency alleging that false and fabricated documents were filed by the Petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, is incorrect in view of the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, wherein it has been categorically observed that no document was filed before him, despite repeated directions to the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2005 passed in O.E.A. Revision Case No.79 of 2003, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6764 of 2006 before this Court seeking direction to the Tahsildar and A.D.M., Khurda, for correction of records and collection of rent. In the said writ petition, this Court, by order dated 12.09.2006, quashed the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. Mr. Dhal also contended that the primary allegation in the F.I.R. pertains to the alleged filing of forged documents before the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, whereas the order dated 28.03.2005 clearly records that no such documents were filed by the Petitioner. The revision itself was initiated at the instance of the Collector, Khurda. Hence, the report submitted by the Joint Secretary to the I.I.C., Capital P.S., stating that Page 5 of 9 the Petitioner had filed forged documents such as Hatapatta and rent receipts purportedly issued by the ex- intermediary, is incorrect and liable to be quashed. 7. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions of the Petitioner and submitted that the alleged Hatapatta, on the basis of which the Petitioner seeks recognition of tenancy, was never issued by the ex-intermediary. Therefore, the report lodged by the Joint Secretary, which formed the basis of registration of F.I.R. No.4 of 2008 and the subsequent cognizance taken by the learned court, is legal and justified. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in O.E.A. Revision Case No.79 of 2003, it appears that the revision was filed by the Collector, Khurda under Section 38-B of the O.E.A. Act challenging the order dated 05.05.1981 passed in O.E.A. Misc. Case No.160 of 1980. The Tahsildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Bhubaneswar, in the said order, had observed that the ex-intermediary, namely, Harekrushna Harichandan Mohapatra, had inducted the Petitioner’s predecessor as tenant on 16.08.1935 and granted Patta. Page 6 of 9 The Member, Board of Revenue, upon examining the record, found that the O.E.A. Collector had not followed the prescribed procedure while settling the land and, therefore, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after field inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The said revisional order was later challenged by the Petitioner through some of the legal heirs of Late Premananda Mohapatra in W.P.(C) No.6764 of 2006, wherein this Court vide order dated 12.09.2006 was pleased to quash the order dated 28.03.2005. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines: - “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in Page 7 of 9 so are and absurd the same do not disclose the support of commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the criminal concerned Act proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (under which is maliciously a 10. In view of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (Supra) and the foregoing discussion, the allegations made in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, relying upon forged documents, are unsupported by any material Page 8 of 9 on record. In the absence of any prima facie evidence establishing such forgery, the cognizance taken by the learned court vide order dated 17.04.2013 in G.R. Case No.3146 of 2009 corresponding to Capital P.S. Case No.100 of 2005 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and is hereby quashed. 11. Hence, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 29-Oct-2025 17:50:36 Page 9 of 9