The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17374 of 2023 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Anu Sen and Others …. Petitioners -versus- Kumudini Dhada and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - Mr. Gautam Mishra, Sr.Advocate. assisted by Mr. A.K. Dash, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, Advocate. (for O.P. Nos.1 to 9) Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel (for O.P. Nos.10 to 12) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision Case No.15 of 2005 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) and also to set aside the order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 by the Page 1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) and to confirm the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners filed an application before the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) praying for conferring their raiyat right in respect of the case land. On the basis of the said application, the O.P. No.12 instituted OLR Case No.82 of 1997 under Section 4(5) of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 and as per order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in that OLR Case No.82 of 1997, the O.P. No.12 declared to the petitioners as raiyats of the case land. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro, one Biswanath Dhada and Pradeep Sen preferred an appeal vide OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 before the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) challenging the said order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12). After hearing from both the sides, the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) as per its order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) set aside to the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) and remitted back the matter Page 2 of 9 vide OLR Case No.82 of 1997 to the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) for hearing of the same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. On being dissatisfied with the said order concerning the remand of the OLR Case No.82 of 1997 to the Tahasidlar, Soro for hearing of the same afresh as per order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11), the respondents of that OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 (petitioners in this writ petition) challenged the same by filing a revision vide OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10). After hearing the said OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 from both the sides, the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) passed its final order in that OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 on dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-4) and set aside to the order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 and confirmed to the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12). Thereafter, the O.P Nos.1 & 2 in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 filed writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.14985 of 2006 before this Court challenging the order dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-4) passed in OLR Revision Case No.15 of 2005 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore. Page 3 of 9 After hearing the said W.P.(C) No.14985 of 2006 from both the sides, this Court, as per its order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure-5) passed in that W.P.(C) No.14985 of 2006 remitted back the matter vide OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 to the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) for its fresh adjudication. On the basis of the final judgment dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure-5) passed in W.P.(C) No.14985 of 2006, the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) heard the OLR Revision Case No.15 of 2005 afresh from both the sides and passed its judgment on dated 29.03.2023 in setting aside the order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub- Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 as well as the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 and directed the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) to prepare the record of the case land in the name of
Decision
the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 of the writ petition i.e. in the name of the Biswanath Dhada and Pradeep Sen (those had preferred the OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999). On being aggrieved with the said final order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005, the petitioners thereof (those were the petitioners in OLR Case No.82 of 1997) challenged the same by filing this writ petition being the petitioners against the O.Ps praying for Page 4 of 9 quashing that order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10), the order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore and to uphold the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 by the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) in their favour. 3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.1 to 9 and learned SC for the State (O.P. Nos.10 to 12). 4. During the course of hearing, in order to assail the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10), learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions i.e. (i) (1999) 87 CLT 198; Smt. Sarala Kumari Rath Vrs. Khati Rout and Others (ii) 2019 (I) ILR-Cut-659; Daitary Swain Vrs. Kartika Swain & Others On the contrary, in support of the impugned order, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.1 to 9 relied upon the following decision in a case between Khiradhar Patel Vrs. State passed in O.J. 635 of 1978 (decided on 27.06.1985). 5. The undisputed factual matrix of this matter as narrated above is that, OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners of the Page 5 of 9 same (those are the petitioners in this writ petition) praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11). As per the final order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999, the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) remitted back the matter vide OLR Case No.82 of 1997 to the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) after setting aside the impugned order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-2) passed in that OLR Case No.82 of 1997 (which was challenged in that appeal) for deciding the same afresh. Therefore, the respondents in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 (petitioners in OLR Case No.82 of 1997) challenged the final order concerning the remand of OLR Case No.82 of 1997 passed on dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-3) by the Sub-Collector, Balasore by filing OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10). 6. The controversy between the parties in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 was that, whether the impugned order concerning the remand of OLR Case No.82 of 1997 passed on dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure- 3) by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 is legally sustainable or not? 7. It is the propositions of law that, the scope of a revision before the Revisional Court is very very limited. Because, the scope, power and Page 6 of 9 jurisdiction of the Revisional Court are not as good as the Appellate Court. As per law, only the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is to be considered by the Revisional Court. 8. When, the petitioners in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 had challenged to the impugned order of remand of the OLR Case No.82 of 1997 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11), for which, as per law, it was the duty of the Revisional Authority in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 to answer the sustainability, legality and propriety of the impugned order of remand passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore. But, without answering to the legality and propriety of the impugned order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999, the Revisional Authority i.e. O.P. No.10 in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 passed the impugned order on dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) in setting aside the order of the Tahasildar, Soro passed in OLR Case No.82 of 1997 without stating anything concerning the legality and propriety of the impugned order relating to the remand of the OLR Case No.82 of 1997 to the Tahasildar, Soro for its fresh adjudication passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.11) in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999. Page 7 of 9 For which, the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 by the Revisional Authority is not related to the controversy between the parties in that OLR Revision No.15 of 2005. As such, the Revisional Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure- 1). Because, the order passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 should have been limited/concentred to the matter of controversy in that revision as discussed above between the parties. Therefore, the impugned order passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the decisions relied by the parties indicated in Para No.4 of this judgment have become inapplicable to the matters in this writ petition. 9. So, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 by the O.P. No.10 through this writ petition filed by the petitioners. 10. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed. 11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. Page 8 of 9 The impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) is quashed (set aside). The matter vide OLR Revision No.15 of 2005 remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) to decide the same afresh relating to the remand of OLR Case No.82 of 1997 to the Tahasildar, Soro (O.P. No.12) passed in OLR Appeal No.1 of 1999 for its fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties 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 Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) in OLR Revision No.15 of 2005. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore (O.P. No.10) in OLR Revision Case No.15 of 2005 on 03.10.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the O.P. No.10 as to further proceedings of the OLR Revision Case No.15 of 2005 according to the observations made in this judgment. 12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2025 17:55:17 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 17.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 9 of 9