The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 21643 OF 2023 1. Umakanta Mahasuara 2. Surekha Rath 3. Rabinarayan Mohapatra 4. Kalyani Mohanty 5. Srilekha Mohapatra 6. Arun Jyoti Sahoo 7. Amarjyoti Sahoo 8. Miss Lotus -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Collector, Khordha 3. Sub-Collector, Khordha 4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 5. Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu …. Petitioners Mr. S. K. Rath, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. S. Kar, Advocate (for O.P. No. 5) 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 Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated 6th June, 2018 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu proceeding in OEA(S) Case No. 761 of 2016 under Annexure-4. Petitioner also assails the consequential order dated 19th May, 2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Tahasildar pursuant to the order under Annexure-4.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 jointly purchased Plot No. Page 1 of 5 480(P) and 481(P) of Khata No. 652 under Mouza- Bhubaneswar Sadar, Unit No. 36, in the District of Khordha (erstwhile, District of Puri) vide registered sale deed No. 6049 dated 16th August, 2002. Petitioner No.3 purchased part of Plot No. 482 of same khata vide registered sale deed No. 8255 dated 13th December, 1991. Petitioner No.4 purchased Plot No. 481(P) of same khata vide registered sale deed No. 582 dated 22nd January, 1992 and Petitioner No.5 purchased a portion of Plot No. 482 vide registered sale deed No. 391 dated 25th January, 1999. Deceased father of the Petitioner Nos. 6, 7 & 8 purchased Plot No. 484/1874 of Khata No. 652 in Mouza- Bhubaneswar Sadar, Unit 36 in the District of Khordha (erstwhile District of Puri) vide registered sale deed No. 1101/2 dated 17th November, 1982. On approval of building plans by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, the Petitioners constructed their respective residential houses on their respective plots. The Petitioners approached the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for recording of the land, purchased by them in their names. But he refused to record the land in question in their name disclosing that in a Bebandobasta proceeding, the land has been recorded in the name of Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije- Bhubaneswar. On enquiry the petitioners came to know that the plots in question were in Bebandobasta status, Thus, OEA(S) Case No.761/2016 was initiated suo motu by the Additional Tahasildar for assessment of rent and settlement of land, Bhubaneswar and vide order dated 6th June, 2018 (Annexure-4) a direction was issued to record the land in the name of Shri Lingaraj Mohaprabhu marfat Trust Board under occupancy right under sthitiban status. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Page 2 of 5 Bhubaneswar recorded the land in the name of Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that notice of the proceeding was served neither on the vendor nor on the Petitioners, although the Petitioners are in peaceful possession over the plots in question by constructing their respective residential houses. In Bebandobasta case, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has neither made any enquiry nor provided any opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case, although they have purchased the land by virtue of registered sale deeds from the rightful owner. 5. In view of the above, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 and to remit the matter to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of OEA(S) Case No.761 of 2016 by providing the Petitioners opportunity of hearing. 6. It is his submission that in a writ petition involving similar issue of fact and law, i.e., W.P.(C) No.6642 of 2025 (Sanjaya Kumar Mohapatra vs. State of Odisha and others), this Court, vide order dated 24th June, 2025, remitted the matter to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the OEA Case by providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner therein. He, therefore, prays that the Petitioners deserve similar treatment. 7. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu submits that the land in question was recorded in the name of Sri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, marfat Trust Board in Khewat No.1 under Chirasthayee Tanki Madhyasatwadhikari Page 3 of 5 status in sabik RoR. The land in question was given to Sri Jagannath Mohapatra and Sri Bhagaban Mohapatra, the vendors of the Petitioners for seva puja of the deity. Thus, they had no right to alienate the property in favour of the Petitioners. Thus, the sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioners does not confer any title on them. It is his submission that even if the Petitioners are given an opportunity of hearing, they will not be in a position to improve upon their case. As such, remitting the matter by providing opportunity of hearing will be a futile exercise. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that from the impugned order (Annexure-4), it is not clear as to whether the Petitioners were provided with any opportunity of hearing or not. Hence, this Court may pass necessary orders taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-4, it is apparent that the Petitioners were not provided with an opportunity of hearing in OEA(S) Case No. 761 of 2016. Although a spot visit was stated to have been conducted by the Additional Tahasildar, but it does not appear to have been done properly. In one hand, the Additional Tahasildar observed in the impugned order that the land in question was given to Jagannath Mohapatra and Bhagaban Mohapatra for rendering seva of particular nature to the Deity, on the other hand, it is observed from spot visit that it was ascertained that the recorded tenant (Deity) was in possession. 9.1. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the matter requires fresh consideration be conducting de-novo enquiry and Page 4 of 5 providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, as they claim to be in possession over the land in question purchased by them through registered sale deeds. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6th June, 2018 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No. 761 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. 10.1. Since, the Parties to the writ petition are being represented, this Court, in order to avoid further delay, directs they shall appear before the Additional Tahasildar, that Bhubaneswar on 8th December, 2025 along with the certified copy of this order to receive further instruction and participate in the proceeding. 11. 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. 761 of 2016. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order dated 17th July, 2023 passed in I. A. No. 10294 of 2023 stands vacated. Subhalaxmi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 11:21:33 (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 5 of 5