The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Ranjana Sahoo ***** …… Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Odisha represented through the Special Secretary to Government, GA Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar 2. Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 07.11.2025 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 // 2 // 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 13th August, 1987 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 in Revision Case No.203 of 1987 initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity the ‘OGLS Act’). 3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that father of the Petitioner, namely, Kartika Sahoo (for brevity ‘the lessee’) being a landless person, filed an application for lease of a Government land. Accordingly, W.L. Case No.2251 of 1980 was initiated by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the father of the Petitioner was leased out Plot No.1076 to an extent of Ac. 0.100 decimals under Khata No.443 in Ghatikia Mouza under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (erstwhile in the district of Puri) (for brevity ‘the case land’) vide order dated 14th February, 1981. Since then, the lessee along with his family members possessed the land in exercise of their right, title and interest. When the matter stood thus, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 initiated Revision Case No.203 of 1987 under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act alleging illegalities and irregularities in granting the lease in favour of the lessee. Upon receipt of notice, the lessee appeared before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and filed his written statement/show cause reply. The case was thereafter adjourned to different dates and on 13th August, 1987, the revision case was taken up by the Additional W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 // 3 // District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. The lessee could not know the date of such posting. As such, he could not appear before the revisional Authority and defend his case. Resultantly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed on 13th August, 1987 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the lessee. Further the written statement/show cause reply filed by the lessee was not taken into consideration by the revisional Authority. Since the lessee was absent on the date of hearing of the revision, the Petitioner, being the daughter, had no occasion to know about the pendency of the revision and the order passed therein. When the staff of the Bhubaneswar Tahasil threatened the Petitioner to evict, she came to know that in Revision Case No.203 of 1987, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled the lease granted in favour of the lessee and directed to record the land in Government khata. Accordingly, she applied for certified copy of the case record and has filed the writ petition. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner that in that process, some delay has occurred in filing the writ petition. Since a substantial civil right of the Petitioner and other family members is affected, they should be given an opportunity of hearing in the revision. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is cryptic and non-speaking. No specific finding with regard to alleged illegalities and irregularities in granting the lease has been stated in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 // 4 // Annexure-1 and to remit the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Revision Case No.203 of 1987. 5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is well reasoned. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar providing adequate opportunity to the lessee and scrutinizing the case record with regard to the lease granted in favour of the lessee, came to a categorical conclusion that there are irregularities and illegalities in granting the lease. Hence, in exercise of power under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has rightly cancelled the lease and directed to record the case land in Government khata. It is further submitted that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Explanation, given in the writ petition with regard to delay, is not satisfactory. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 13th August, 1987 under Annexure-1, it is clear that the lease of the case land was granted in favour of the lessee. Although certain findings with regard to irregularities in granting the lease in favour of the lessee has been recorded in the impugned order, but those are not specific and detail particulars of the same has not been given in the impugned order. Further, it is apparent W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 // 5 // that the lessee had filed written statement/show cause reply pursuant to the notice received by him in Revision Case No.203 of 1987. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar did not at all discuss the case of the lessee in the impugned order. The grounds taken in the written statement/show cause reply were not discussed in detail by the revisional Authority. 8. No doubt, the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed in the year, 1987 and the writ petition was filed in the year, 2015. But, it appears that the lessee has already expired in the meantime but, the date of his death is not borne out from the record. The Petitioner claims that she along with other family members is still enjoying the case land. As such, they have a substantial right to be adjudicated in the revision. Hence, this Court feels that the Petitioner and other legal heirs of the lessee should be given opportunity of hearing in the revision. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions made above, this Court finds that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, the Petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 15th December, 2025 along with an authenticated copy of this order to receive further instructions. On appearance of the Petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar shall enquire about other legal heirs of the lessee and persons interested and issue notice W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2025 13:20:12 // 6 // to them to participate in the hearing of Revision Case No.203 of 1987. 11. Needless to say that the Petitioner, if so advised, may also file the additional written statement to the revision. Parties shall cooperate with the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of the revision case. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Dated 7th November, 2025/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 7130 OF 2015 Page 6 of 6