The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5996 of 2025 Sanjukta Pati …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Upendra Kumar Samal, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 08.09.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the owner of the disputed property in question, has challenged the order of eviction dated 10.08.2018 issued by the Sub-Collector-cum-Estate Officer in OPP Case No.6/2018 vide Annexure-5 so also the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Sundargarh in Misc. Appeal Case No.01/2019 vide Annexure-7. 3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions made on behalf of both the parties in brevity remains:- (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the disputed property in question relating to which the impugned proceeding has been initiated, is situated between the Petitioner’s rayati land and the public road. Therefore, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:22:23 Page 1 of 5 the Petitioner has ample right to approach the public road from every corner of her private property in question. (ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the process, also contends that in order to approach the public road the Petitioner is using the suit land in question. She has also made temporary construction over an area of about Ac.0.01 dec. for which the Collector, Sundargarh vide his order No.3363 dated 06.12.2005 has granted the necessary permission to the Petitioner on payment of premium of Rs.6,400/- and the ground rent of Rs.64/- per annum. (iii) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite the above developments the Sub- Collector-cum-Estate Officer, Sundargarh had initiated the proceeding vide OPP Case No.6 of 2018. In the said proceeding, the Petitioner was noticed to file reply to the show cause. Accordingly, the Petitioner on 10.08.2018 submitted his reply and on the said date she was directed to remain present on 24.08.2018 for hearing of the matter. On 24.08.2018 though the Petitioner appeared before the authority concerned, the case was adjourned. On 06.09.2018 the Petitioner came to know about passing of the ex parte order dated 10.08.2018 by the authority concerned i.e. the Estate Officer without hearing the Petitioner and taking into account his reply. (iv) Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the process, Signature Not Verified contends that the Petitioner could not file appeal due to non- Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:22:23 Page 2 of 5 supply of certified copy of the order dated 10.08.2018. Since the Estate Officer attempted to evict the Petitioner from the disputed property in question, the Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.16832 of 2018 which was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to prefer appeal. (v) On getting liberty, though the Petitioner preferred an appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2019 before the Collector, Sundargarh, the Collector, Sundargarh without considering the report of the Tahasildar dated 07.06.2022 and the report of the Revenue Inspector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.01.2025 and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Estate Officer. (vi) Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, also contends that in the appeal proceeding the Collector, Sundargarh has further directed for initiation of necessary proceeding for cancelling of the permissive possession granted in favour of the Petitioner on 16.12.2005. (vii) Challenging the above order of the Collector, Sundargarh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the OPP proceeding before the Estate Officer was disposed of based on Form-G submitted by the Tahasildar, Sundargarh. He further contends that as per the provision governing the field the Form-G should have been issued by the Estate Officer rather by the Tahasildar, Sundargarh. Hence, initiation of the impugned proceeding is per se not Signature Not Verified maintainable in law. He, in the process, contends that the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:22:23 Page 3 of 5 Collector, Sundargarh without considering the said aspect has dismissed the appeal at the instance of the Petitioner which is per se illegal. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this Writ Petition. (vii) In her opposition, learned counsel for the State submits that despite granting of adequate opportunity since the Petitioner could not place her case properly, her appeal has been dismissed based on the averments so also the documents available on record. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court finds that the Collector, Sundargarh has dismissed the appeal at the instance of the Petitioner without considering the factual scenario that the Form-G was issued by the Tahasildar, Sundargarh whereas it should have been issued by the Estate Officer. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Sundargarh, remits the matter back to the Collector, Sundargarh for re-adjudication of the appeal at the instance of the Petitioner. This Court, in the process, also directs the Collector, Sundargarh to conclude the appeal proceeding at the instance of the Petitioner by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:22:23 Page 4 of 5 taking into account the report of the Tahasildar, Sundargarh dated 07.06.2022 and the report of the Revenue Inspector. 6. The entire exercise shall be completed as per law within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. 7. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge Ayaskanta (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:22:23 Page 5 of 5