The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 17487 OF 2024 Shakuntala 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. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order 2. dated 2nd September, 2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No. 974
Legal Reasoning
of 2016 directing to record the land in the name of Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. 3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the deceased-husband of the Petitioner, namely, Srikanta Garabadu was a Sevayat of Lord Sri Page 1 of 5 Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. The land in question, i.e., Plot Nos. 1657 and 1991/4774 of Khata No. 2267 to an extent of Ac.0.082 dec. at Mouza Bhubaneswar Sadar, Unit 28, (Gautam Nagar) in the district of Khurda (erstwhile Puri district) (for brevity ‘the case land’) was given to her husband in lieu of the service rendered to the Deity. The husband of the Petitioner also got the case land converted to ‘Gharabari’ (homestead) kisam and was enjoying the same by constructing the residential house. The Petitioner succeeded to the case land and is also residing in the said residential building. During the settlement operation, the case land was recorded in the name of the Srikanta Garabadu - the deceased husband of the Petitioner and record of right under Khata No. 2267 was prepared in his name. As the land was in Bebandobasta status, OEA(S) Case No.974 of 2016 was initiated suo motu by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and notices stated to have been issued to her husband, who was dead by then. As such, the Petitioner could not know and take part in the proceeding. It is his submission that since the case land stood recorded in the name of the husband of the Petitioner in his individual capacity, the Additional Tahasildar should have directed to record the case land in the name of her deceased husband. Further, the order being passed against a dead person is a nullity. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-2 and to remit the matter to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the OEA(S) Case No.974 of 2016 providing her an opportunity of hearing. Page 2 of 5 4. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu submits that in Sabik record of right the case land was 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 husband 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 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, Bije- Bhubaneswar. 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 Petitioners were not provided with an opportunity of hearing in OEA(S) Case No.974 of 2016. Although the Additional Tahasildar referred to the report of enquiry stated to have been submitted the concerned R.I., but the date of such report 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 her. In one hand, the Additional Tahasildar observed in the impugned order Page 3 of 5 that the case land was given to husband of the Petitioner for rendering seva of particular nature to the Deity, on the other hand from enquiry report it was ascertained that the recorded tenant (Deity) was in possession. Most surprisingly the Additional Tahasildar proceeded on a presumption that the husband of the Petitioner was 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 she claims to be in possession over the case land. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No. 974 of 2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication of the OEA Case by conducting fresh enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the Parties concerned. 8.1 Since, the Parties to the writ petition are being represented, this Court in order to avoid further delay, directs Page 4 of 5 that they 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. 974 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. 9214 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 11:21:33 Page 5 of 5