The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11931 of 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Rokkam Bharatiamma &. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others &. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. S. Rao, Sr. Advocate. assisted by B.K. Mohanty, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :27.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.10.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3). 2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Page 1 of 6 3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, two revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3). The OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner in this writ petition challenging the final order dated 06.08.2019 passed in OLR Appeal No.2 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi arising out of the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6). The husband of the petitioner i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao had filed OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) challenging the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175/1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum- Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6). Accordingly, two revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of same case vide OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were pending before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3). Page 2 of 6 When, during the pendency of the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022, the petitioner thereof i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao expired on dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner along with her sons were substituted in the said OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 in place of the deceased husband of the petitioner as per order dated 12.10.2022. The Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) dropped to the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 filed by the widow petitioner (R. Bharatiamma) as per the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) assigning the reasons that, <when the petitioner of the revision i.e. R. Bharatiamma being the widow of R. Kamalakar Rao along with her two sons have already substituted in place of the deceased petitioner in Revision Case No.1 of 2022 i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao, then this Revision Case No.1 of 2019 filed by the R. Bharatiamma as divorcee of R. Kamalakar Rao is dropped.= 4. The above cryptic impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (O.P. No.3) purely on a technical ground i.e. on the ground of substitution of the petitioner in another OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 in place of the deceased petitioner of the said OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 without expressing anything about the legality and propriety of the impugned order (which Page 3 of 6 was under challenge in that OLR Ceiling Revision Case No.1 of 2019) cannot be sustainable under law. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i). (ii). (iii). In a case between Surendra Kumar Jain Vs. Santobai & Another reported in (2025) INSC (SC) 230 at Para No.12 that, an order must not be passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reason and must reflect the application of mind. In a case between C. Saravana Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai & Another decided in WP(C) No.25723 of 2008 & M.P. No.2 of 2008 (Mad.) at Para No.5 that, the act of passing a cryptic order itself amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice. (at In a case between State of Uttarakhand and another Vrs. Ravi Kumar (deceased) through legal representatives and others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 281 casual 69 & findings/observations made by the Revenue Authority or the Civil Court shall not be accepted at their face value. For which, the matter was remanded back for its fresh disposal. Paras that, 70) 5. It is very fundamental in law that, the Revisional Court shall decide the revision expressing the opinion about the legality and propriety of the impugned order, but should not dismiss or drop the revision merely on a technical ground. 6. When, the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) has dropped the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 filed by the petitioner purely on a technical ground i.e. on the ground of her Page 4 of 6 substitution in OLR Revision Case No.1 of 2022 through the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) without deciding both the revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 analogously, although both the revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of same case vide OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were pending before him, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, it is held that, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) is not inconformity with law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7.
Decision
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. The impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) is quashed (set aside). Page 5 of 6 The matter vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) to decide the same afresh as per law analogously with OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 on 14.11.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) as to further proceedings of the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019. 9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 31.10.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:26:58 Page 6 of 6