The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 17638 OF 2024 Sangram Garabadu …. Petitioner Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Senior Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Collector, Khordha 3. Sub-Collector, Khordha 4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 5. Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 6. Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu …. Opposite Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. S. Kar, Advocate (for O.P. No. 6) Mr. A. K. Nath, Advocate (for Commissioner of Endowment) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated 2nd September, 2020 (Annexure-2) passed in OEA(S) Case No. 971 of 2016 initiated suo motu by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that Plot No. 1991/4773 of Khata No. 2264 to an extent of Ac. 0.060 dec. in Mouza Bhubaneswar town Unit 28 (Gautam Nagar) in the district of Khurda (for Page 1 of 5 brevity ‘the case land’) came to the hands of the common ancestor of the Petitioner, namely, Jayanta Garabadu for offering definite seva-puja to the deity Sri Sri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije Bhubaneswar. In the settlement proceeding, the case land was recorded in the name of said Jayanta Garabadu in the final record of Right (RoR) (Annexure-1) Bebandobasta status. After the death of the predecessors, the Petitioner possesses the same exercising their right, title and interest thereon. In due course, the Petitioner applied to Bhubaneswar Development Authority for approval of the building plan for construction of residential house over the case land. But, the said application was not entertained by Bhubaneswar Development Authority on the ground that the case land stood recorded in the name of the deity Sri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. On enquiry, the Petitioner came to learn that OEA(S) Case No.971 of 2016 was initiated suo motu by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for assessment of rent and settlement, as the RoR in respect of the case land was prepared in Bebandobasta status in the Settlement operation. Learned Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar without issuing any notice to the Petitioner vide order dated 2nd September, 2020 directed to record the case land in the name of the deity Sri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. It is his submission that since the land was recorded in the name of the Petitioner’s predecessor in his individual capacity, it should have been recorded as such by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the suo motu proceeding. Had any opportunity of hearing been given, the Petitioner would have been in a position to appraise the same. Page 2 of 5 He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication in accordance with law providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 4. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije- Bhubaneswar submits that in Sabik RoR, the case land stood recorded in the name of the deity in Khewat No.1 under ‘Chirasthai Tanki Mandhya Satwadhikari’. Thus, the same could not have been recorded in the name of the predecessor of the Petitioner under Annexure-1. The RoR prepared by the Settlement Authority neither creates nor extinguishes the title of the deity. As such, remitting the matter to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, will serve no purpose. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar scrutinizing the materials of record passed the impugned order under Annexure- 2. He also supports the submission of Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. He, however, submits that since the Petitioner alleges non-compliance of principles of natural justice, this Court may consider the matter and pass necessary orders. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-2, it is apparent that the Petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing in OEA(S) Case No. 971 of 2016. Although a spot visit stated to have been conducted by the Additional Tahasildar, but Page 3 of 5 the date of such spot visit is not mentioned in the impugned order. It also does not appear to have been done properly, more particularly in presence of the Petitioner after serving notice on him. In one hand, the Additional Tahasildar observed in the impugned order that the case land was given to predecessor of the Petitioner for rendering seva of particular nature to the Deity, on the other hand from spot visit it was ascertained that the recorded tenant (Deity) was in possession. Most surprisingly, the Additional Tahasildar proceeded on a presumption that the Petitioner is claiming the case land to be recorded in his name on the basis of sale deed, whereas the claim of the Petitioner was on the basis of succession. It is also apparent that the impugned order under Annexure-2 is an outcome of total non-application of mind. The Additional Tahasildar only filled up the blank portion of a previously printed order sheet in his handwriting. On this ground alone, the impugned order under Annexure-2 deserves to be set aside. There are also several other procedural irregularities in the impugned order. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the matter requires fresh consideration by conducting de-novo enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as they claim to be in possession over the case land. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7th August, 2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No. 971 of 2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication of the OEA Case by Page 4 of 5 conducting fresh enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the Parties concerned. 8.1 Since, the party to the writ petition is being represented, this Court in order to avoid further delay directs that he shall appear before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 8th December, 2025 along with the certified copy of this order to receive further instruction and participate in the proceeding. 9. It is needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case of either of the parties and that parties shall co-operate with the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of the OEA(S) Case No. 971 of 2016. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order dated 26th July, 2024 passed in I. A. No. 9207 of 2024 stands vacated. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Subhalaxmi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 11:21:34 Page 5 of 5