The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25090 of 2025 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Pitabasa Swain and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Rath-1, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty, Learned Sanding Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :25.11.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed in OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2). Page 1 of 6 2. The reasons for filing of this writ petition by the petitioners challenging the
Decision
order vide dated 05.10.2024(Annexure-1) that, they(petitioners) were the petitioners in the Revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 before the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2). The said OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) on dated 05.10.2024(Annexure-1) on the ground that, the petitioners did not file required documents, showing the flow of tile of the case land in their favour. For which, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order. 3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, they(petitioners) are armed with all the documents of the case land in their favour in respect of the flow of title thereof in their favour. The petitioners are the eagerly interested for Page 2 of 6 participating in the hearing of the Revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017, if the said Revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 shall be remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) after quashing(setting aside) the impugned order for deciding the same afresh. 5. It is settled propositions of law that, “the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated/decided upon the merits of controversies between them. Any party should not be thrown out merely on technicalities. The, Law Courts will lose their efficacy, if they cannot possibly respond to the needs of the societies. Technicalities their might be many, but, the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality, since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice. So, law courts should always be in favour of giving opportunity to the parties to meet their case on merits instead of debarring them to adjudicate their rights on technical grounds.” The above propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) IV (2005) C.L.T. 347 (Madras):Yanaimal Thottam Trust Vrs. B.Lakshmanan & Another—Courts would always be in favour of substantial justice rather than technicalities. (Para 5) Page 3 of 6 (ii) 2001 (8) SCC 151 : M.S. Grewal & Another Vrs. Deep Chand Sood & Others—(Para 28)—Law Courts will lose their efficacy, if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society. Technicalities their might be many, but, the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality, since the technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice. 6. Here, in this matter at hand, when the petitioners are eagerly interested for the disposal of the revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 on merit, if the impugned order will be set aside and opportunity will be given to them(petitioners) for filing of all documents of the case land in their favour relating to the flow of title. 7. When, the impugned has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) only on technical ground, i.e., for non-filing of documents showing the flow of title, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is felt proper to remand the revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 to the Opposite Party No.2 for deciding the same afresh after setting aside the impugned order for providing opportunity to the petitioners for participating in the hearing of the revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 and to file the Page 4 of 6 required documents in respect of flow of title of the case land in their favour. 8. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 05.10.2020(Annexure-1) passed in revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 is quashed and the matter vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2). The parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before the learned Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 on dated 10.12.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the learned Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.I under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) as to the further proceedings of revision vide OSS Case No.1691 of 2017 on the basis of the directions given in this judgment. Page 5 of 6 9. As such, with the aforesaid observations, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. (A.C. Behera), Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 25-Nov-2025 20:49:05 Page 6 of 6