The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.21938 of 2025 Babrubahan Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr.Advocate. Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :05.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure- 7) passed in O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revision Court-IV at Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had filed revision Page 1 of 5 vide O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 praying for changing the Kisam of the case land in the R.o.R. prepared in the name of the petitioner from Jalasaya-2 to homestead, because the kisam of the case land indicated in the R.o.R as Jalasaya-2 is baseless, but in fact, the said is Sarad-2 land. 3. After hearing from both the sides, the O.P. No.3 dismissed the said O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 finally on dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-7) stating that, “the preparation of the R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the petitioner is not legal and the case land belong to the deity and the deity has not been made party in the revision and the petitioner has no valid title of the suit land and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to establish first his right and title over the case land, which is Debottar and Sikim land.” 4. The revision vide O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner only praying for correction of the kisam of the case land from Jalasaya-2 to Sarad-2, but the O.P. No.3 dismissed to the said revision petition vide O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 of the petitioner on dated 30.12.2024 as per Annexure-7 by creating a third case (which was not the case of any party) stating that, the petitioner has no valid title over the case land and he will approach appropriate Authority for establishing his title on the same. Page 2 of 5 The aforesaid creation of third case (which was not a case of either party before the O.P. No.3) through the impugned order vide Annexure-7 by the O.P. No.3 without intimating the petitioner to have his say in respect of the above intention of the O.P. No.3 for the creation of the aforesaid third case cannot be sustainable under law. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (I) In a case between Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Others reported in IV (2008) Civ.L.T. 276 (SC) (Para Nos.9, 10 &12) that, a Court cannot make out a case not pleaded by the parties. The Court should confine its decision to the question raised in the pleadings. (II) In a case between Chanchal Kumar Bera @ Chanchal Bera & Others Vs. Additional Commissioner Settlement & Consolidation Balasore, District: Balasore & Others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 861 that, the Court or adjudicating authority has no authority under law to make out a third case, which is not the case of either party for recording the case land in the name of the State of Odisha. (III) In a case between Deepak Ananda Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided in Civil Appeal Nos.88-89 of 2023 (Para No.17) that, If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that, no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being Page 3 of 5 heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. 5. When, the Opposite Party No.3 through the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 vide Annexure-7 has created a third case, without inviting any show-cause from the parties to meet the intention of the Opp. Party No.3 in respect of the above third case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 vide Annexure-7 passed in O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 by the Opposite Party No.3 is not sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Decision
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 6. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 7. The impugned order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-7) passed in O.S.S. Case No.707 of 2022 by the Opposite Party No.3 is quashed (set aside). Page 4 of 5 In view of the Notification No.42648 dated 12.11.2025 of Revenue and Disaster Management Department of Government of Odisha and Para No.24 of the Odisha Mutation Manual, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for changing the classification of the case land, as Para No.24 of the Orissa Mutation Manual and the Rule-34 of Orissa Survey and Settlement (Amendment) Rules, 2025 empowers the Tahasildar to change the classification of land, even after final publication of R.o.R. by the Settlement Authorities. In case of filing of an application for changing the classification of the case land by the petitioner annexing the certified copy of this judgment, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall entertain the same and shall dispose of the same as per law as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of filing of the same. 8. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 23.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 Page 5 of 5