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: 03-Dec-2025 15:24:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Debendra Nath Mahana W.P.(C). NO.2166 OF 2016 …. Petitioner Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3) Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.4 o 6) CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 02.12.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 21st November, 2015 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in O.E.A. R.C. No.30 of 2009 in allowing a petition filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 6 for intervention. 3. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that O.E.A. R.C. No.30 of 2009 has been initiated under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the Petitioner. During pendency of the Revision Petition, the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 filed a petition for intervention. The said petition was allowed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Hence, assailing the said order, the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C). No.22517 of 2010, which was disposed of on 16th August, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 15:24:36 setting aside the order impleading the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 as parties to the OEA Revision Case and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication of the petition for intervention giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack heard the intervention petition afresh. But, without taking into consideration the objection filed by the Petitioner to the petition for intervention, the impugned order under Annexure-1 has been passed. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is cryptic and non-speaking. Learned Member, Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 are strangers to the village, where the land in question situates. Thus, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the Revision Case. They described themselves to be public spirited person in their petition for intervention. As such they don’t have any individual grievance to be redressed. The Revision Petition being a dispute inter se between the State Government and the Petitioner, they will no way be aggrieved, if any order is passed in favour of the Petitioner in the Revision Petition. It is his submission that in the objection to the intervention petition, the Petitioner has taken the aforesaid grounds, but without considering the same, the impugned order under Annexure-1 has been passed. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6, who are impleaded as parties by virtue of the impugned order under Annexure-1, submits that the land in question i.e., Plot No.2148 in Khata No.810 to an extent of Ac.1.12 dec. and Plot No.2430 in Khata No.900 to an extent of Ac.1.18 dec. in mouza Mathasahi in the district of Bahdrak (for brevity ‘the Case Land’) stands recorded Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 15:24:36 in the name of Roads and Buildings (R & B) Department, Government of Odisha. The Case Land is ‘Nayanjori’ in Kisam. Opposite Party No.4 belongs to village Mathasahi, where the Case Land situates. Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 belong to nearby villages. Villagers of Mathasahi, Jagannathpur, Bhambanibindha including the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 are using the Case Land as their passage. Encroachment Case was initiated against the Petitioner by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak for occupation of the Case Land and eviction order was passed. The Petitioner did not challenge the said order of eviction. In view of the above, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 are proper parties to the Revision Petition and no effective order can be passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing. 5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though the impugned order under Annexure-1 does not spell out any reason, but, the Petitioner will not be aggrieved, if the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 are impleaded as parties to the O.E.A. R.C. No.30 of 2009. 6. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Case Land stands recorded in the name of R & B Department, Government of Odisha. The nature of the Case Land is ‘Nayanjori’. It is submitted by Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the intermediary settled the Case Land in favour of the father of the Petitioner before vesting. Thus, the Petitioner is in khas possession of the same. We don’t express any opinion on such submission, as we are not delving into the merit of the case of the Petitioner in OEA Revision Case. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 15:24:36 7. However, on perusal of the case record, it reveals that the intervener-Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 sought to be impleaded as parties on the plea that they are using the Case Land as passage. It is also alleged that the villagers are using the Case Land as passage. True it is that, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 have stated in the intervention petition that they are public spirited persons and espousing the case of the villagers to which they belong. However, this Court finds that Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 also use the Case Land as passage. Hence, order, if any passed in favour of the Petitioner in the OEA Revision Case, may adversely affect the case of Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6. 8. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, while adjudicating the petition for intervention, has not assigned any reason. It has also not taken into consideration the objection filed by the Petitioner to the intervention petition. Thus, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for remitting the matter for fresh adjudication of the petition for intervention after setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1. 9. In view of the discussions made and findings recorded above, remitting the matter to learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh adjudication of the intervention petition taking into consideration the rival pleadings will not only cause further delay in adjudication of the Revision Petition, but also render the adjudication process of intervention petition futile. 10. In view of the above, this Court, without interfering with the impugned order under Annxeure-1, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to make an endeavour for early disposal of O.E.A. R.C. Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 15:24:36 No.30 of 2009 giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 herein keeping in mind that the OEA Revision Case is pending since 2009. 11. Interim order dated 16th February, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.2047 of 2016 stands vacated. Urgent certified copy of the order shall be granted as per Rules. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 5 of 5