The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 19878 OF 2024 Nibedita Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. S. K. Rath, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Collector, Khordha 3. Sub-Collector, Khordha 4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 5. Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu 6. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha …. 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:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated 18th August, 2018 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu proceeding in OEA(S) Case No. 968 of 2016 under Annexure-9. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the vendor sold an area of Ac. 0.100 dec. out of total area of Ac. 0.495 dec. to the vendor of present petitioner through Registered sale deed No. 4010 dated 12th May, 1976 under Sabik Khata No. 1725 Plot No. 2317 abd tge vendor of Page 1 of 5 petitioner Smt. Basant Kumari Panda vide Registered sale deed No. 12615 dated 3rd December, 2007 sold the case land to the present Petitioner. On approval of building plans by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, the Petitioner constructed her residential house on her plot. The Petitioner approached the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for recording of the land, purchased by her in her name. But he refused to record the land in question in her name disclosing that in a Bebandobasta proceeding, the land has been recorded in the name of Shri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije- Bhubaneswar. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that the plot in question was in Bebandobasta status. Thus, OEA(S) Case No.968/2016 was initiated suo motu by the Additional Tahasildar for assessment of rent and settlement of land, Bhubaneswar and vide order dated 18th August, 2018 (Annexure-9) 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, 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 Petitioner, although the Petitioner is in peaceful possession over the plot in question by constructing her residential house. In Bebandobasta case, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has neither made any enquiry nor provided any opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case, although she has 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 Petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order under Page 2 of 5 Annexure-4 and to remit the matter to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of OEA(S) Case No.968 of 2016 by providing the Petitioner 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 Petitioner deserves 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 status in sabik RoR. The land in question was given to Satyanarayan Badu, the vendor of the Petitioner for seva puja of the deity. Thus, he had no right to alienate the property in favour of the Petitioner. Thus, the sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioner does not confer any title on them. It is his submission that even if the Petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing, she will not be in a position to improve upon her 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-9), it is not clear as to whether the Petitioner was provided with any opportunity of Page 3 of 5 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 Petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing in OEA(S) Case No. 968 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 Satyanarayan Badu 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 providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as she claims to be in possession over the land in question purchased by her through registered sale deeds. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18th August, 2018 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S) Case No. 968 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 that they shall appear before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 8th December, 2025 along with the certified Page 4 of 5 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. 968 of 2016. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order dated 4th September, 2024 passed in I. A. No. 10105 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