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: 25-Jun-2025 15:55:27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sanjaya Kumar Mohapatra W.P.(C). NO.6642 OF 2025 …. Petitioner Mr. Sushree Sunil Kanta Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 24.06.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated 5th Order No. 03. 1. 2. August, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner purchased Plot Nos.768 and 839, Khata No.1588 to an extent of Ac.0.090 dec and Ac.0.498 dec. respectively (Sarad-I Kisam) situated in mouza Bhubaneswar, Unit-27, District- Khurda (for brevity ‘the case land’) from the recorded tenant, namely, Nabakishore Badu by virtue of RSD dated 27th January, 2017 (Annexure-2). Since the case land was under ‘Bebandabasta’ status, the Petitioner could not apply for mutation of the same in his name. However, he is in physical possession over the said plot by exercising his right, title and interest thereon. When the matter stood thus, OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016 was initiated by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for settlement of rent of the case land. No notice whatsoever was issued to the Petitioner in OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016, although he is in possession over the case land. The said suo motu OEA Case was disposed of directing 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: 25-Jun-2025 15:55:27 to settle the case land in favour of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar, Marfat Trust Board having occupancy right under Sthitiban status w.e.f. the date of vesting i.e., 18th March, 1974 subject to the confirmation by the Sub-collector, Bhubaneswar and payment of backrent, cess and Salami. 4. The Petitioner, being not noticed, could not know about the order passed on 5th August, 2022 under Annexure-3. Hence, he could not take any step immediately to challenge the said order. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case land was never recorded in the name of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar. It was recorded in the name of the vender of the Petitioner in his individual capacity as would be apparent from the ROR under Annexure-1 published on 5th January, 1991. Thus, on the date of execution of the sale deed under Annexure-2 in favour of the Petitioner, the vender of the Petitioner had right, title, interest and possession over the case land. From the impugned order under Annexure-3 itself, it is manifest that the Tahasildar had not made any local enquiry nor had issued any notice to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. The matter may be remitted to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016 providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Dash, learned ASC vehemently objects to the same and submits that the writ petition is hopelessly time barred by time. It is his submission that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was in physical possession over the case land on the date of spot enquiry, i.e., 2nd June, 2022. Admittedly, the Petitioner 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: 25-Jun-2025 15:55:27 purchased the case land after initiation of OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016 in terms of Letter No.905 dated 11th January, 2016 of Government of Odisha in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management referring to previous Government Order No.57677/R dated 6th December, 2000 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. Thus, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has not committed any error in directing to record the land in favour of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar. 6. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-3, it appears that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar appears to have visited the spot on 2nd June, 2022 along with RI, Bhubaneswar. But, the observation with regard to the possession of the case land is not clear from the recital of the impugned order, which reproduced as under: “I have visited the spot on 2/6/2022 being accompanied with RI, Bhubaneswar. It is ascertained that the recorded RT(s)/Legal heirs of the RTs/subsequent purchasers is/are in possession of the case land. Field visit memorandum (in Annexure-D) has been prepared and kept attached in this case record. It further reveals that the RTs/Legal heirs of RTs has/have been transferred the property/part of the property in favour of different persons through registered sale deed.” 7. It further appears from the impugned order that notice inviting public objection was duly issued to the concerned GP/BMC. The served copy of the public notice was also attached to the case record. The RI, Bhubaneswar submitted a report which revealed that the case land is a part of Trust Estate and vested to Government on 18th March, 1974. It is also observed in the impugned order that as per the Sabik ROR, the case land stood recorded in the name of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar Marfat Trust Board with status ‘Chirasthai Tanki Madhya Satwa Adhikari’. The recorded tenants are enjoying 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: 25-Jun-2025 15:55:27 land as they were rendering service to the deity Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar. But, the ROR under Annexure- 1 clearly reveals that the case land was recorded in the name of the vender of the Petitioner in his individual capacity. 8. Thus, it appears that the enquiry conducted either by Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar or by the RI, Bhubaneswar was perfunctory. The observation with regard to possession as quoted above also does not make it clear as to who was in possession of the case land on the date of spot enquiry. It is apparent from the impugned order that the Petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing although, he claims to be in physical possession over the case land pursuant to the RSD(Annexure-2) executed in his favour by the recorded tenant. These material aspects were neither looked into nor discussed with in the impugned order. Delay in filing the writ petition appears to have occurred as the Petitioner did not have knowledge about the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to adjudicate the OEA(S) Case No.850 of 2016 afresh serving notice to the parties concerned including the Petitioner, the Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije and the vender/his LRs and providing them an opportunity of hearing. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4