The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10535 of 2025 Ganesh Chandra Sethy …. Petitioner Mr. Kishore Chandra Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sachidananda Nayak, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER 24.04.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Though the matter has been listed under the heading for “Fresh Admission”, on consent of the
Legal Reasoning
learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also Mr. Nayak, learned ASC for the State, who accepts notice on behalf of the Opposite Parties
Decision
and admits to have received copy of the writ petition. 4. The order passed by the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar (Opposite Party No.3) dated 20th November, 2024 in Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022, initiated under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, is under challenge on Order No. 01. Page 1 of 5 the ground that even though the matter was pending before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar (Opposite Party No.3) awaiting report from the concerned Tahasildar in terms of the Government letter 14.12.2020, but the said application was rejected on presumption that the applicant is no more interested to get permission for sale of his land and the matter is pending since the year 2022. It has been stated in the writ petition that pursuant to the application of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party-3, vide order dated 08.09.2022, asked the Tahasildar, Kantapada to issue proclamation inviting objections, if any, and submit a detailed enquiry report with specific views in accordance with the letter of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 14.12.2020. In response to the said order of the Opposite Party No.3, the Tahasildar directed the Revenue Inspector, Brahman Sailo to conduct enquiry and report. Accordingly, the concerned Revenue Inspector conducted enquiry in presence of the Sarpanch, Postal Gram Panchayat on 28.07.2023, and reported that the proposed transferee is Dasy Rout, wife of Ajaya Rout of Sankarpur, Nuasahi in the district Cuttack and the purpose of transfer is genuine. 5. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Tahasildar Kantapada had asked the Petitioner over telephone to appear for hearing on a specific date. Accordingly, the Page 2 of 5 Petitioner appeared before the Tahasildar, Kantapada and produced all the documents to substantiate his case and the hearing was concluded on the said date. After the enquiry undertaken by the Tahasildar, Kantapada, the Petitioner appeared before the Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack time and again, but the Opposite Party No.3 could not proceed further in absence of the report from the concerned Tahasildar. It has further been stated in the writ petition that even if the Petitioner would have appeared on 20.11.2024 before the Opposite Party No.3, it could not have passed any effective order except directing the Tahasildar, Kantapada to submit his report. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, when the Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022 was pending awaiting report of the Tahasildar, Kantapada, the Opposite Party No.3 should not have dismissed the said application on presumption that the Petitioner was no more interested to get permission for sale of his land. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the impugned order is appealable under section 58 of the OLR Act and the writ petition is not maintainable because of the alternative remedy available under the Act. He further submits, vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2024, the Opposite Party No.3 has advised the Petitioner to apply afresh, if needed, along with the Page 3 of 5 consent of all the recorded tenants over the application form. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that when Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022 initiated under section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 admittedly was pending for disposal awaiting the report of the Tahsildar, the Opposite Party No.3 was not justified to reject the Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022 on the ground of a presumption that the applicant is no more interested to get permission for sale of his land. Rather, it would have been appropriate for the Sub-Collector, Sadar to issue reminder to the concerned Tahasildar to submit the report, as called for vide order dated 08.09.2022 in terms of letter of the Govt. dated 14.12.2020, despite mention in the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 that “the concerned Tahasildar has not submitted the report as called for vide order dated 14.12.2020 and SR not back”. 9. The Opposite Party No.3 was not justified to reject the Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022 on his own presumption that the applicant is no more interested to get permission for sale of the land. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside and the mater is remitted back to Opposite Party No.3, who shall proceed further in Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of Page 4 of 5 2022 in accordance with law and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 10. The Tahasildar, Kantapada is also directed to act immediately in terms of the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 and submit the report within a period of one month hence, enabling the Opposite Party No.3 to proceed further and conclude the proceeding in Revenue Misc. Case No.165 of 2022, as directed by this Court. 11. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 enabling the said authorities to act in terms of the observation and direction made vide this order. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. Mona Judge (S.K. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Apr-2025 19:15:50 Page 5 of 5