Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Prafulla Kumar Malik & Another … Petitioners. -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 1 of 8 Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing an order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which promoted the petitioners for filing the same is that, the petitioners in this writ petition were the petitioners in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 before the Opp. Party No.2. They filed a Revision under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 praying for recording the case land in their names correcting the same from the name of Opp. Party No.2-Dhuli Mallik stating that, instead of recording the case land in their names, the same was recorded erroneously in the name of the Opp. Party No.2 of that Revision i.e. Opp. Party WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 2 of 8 No.4 in this writ petition and there was also shortage of an area of Ac.0.13 decimals in such recording. After hearing to the said Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 from both the sides, the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) dismissed to that Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 of the petitioners on dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-4) and passed an order for recording the case land in the name of Government in Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata assigning the reasons that, “The petitioners have not been able to substantiate their right, title and interest over the suit properties producing title documents. For which, the claim of the petitioners could not be considered.” 3. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972, the petitioners challenged the same by filing this writ petition against the State of Odisha and others including the Opp. Party No.2 of the Revision i.e. Dhuli Mallik. 4. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the State- WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 Opp. Parties, as none appeared from the side of the Opp. Party No.4 (Dhuli Mallik) for participating in the hearing of this writ petition. 5. The Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners against the Opp. Party No.4 (Dhuli Mallik) in this writ petition praying for correction of recording of the case land from the name of the Opp. Party No.4 (Dhuli Mallik) to their names and also to correct the shortage area of Ac.0.13 decimals. In the final order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010, the Opp. Party No.2 neither confirmed the impugned order for recording the case land in the name of Dhuli Mallik nor passed any order for correction of recording of the same from the name of Dhuli Mallik to the names of the petitioners, instead of which, the Opp. Party No.2 created a third case (which was not the case of the petitioners and their opponent Dhuli Mallik), but passed an order for recoding the case land in the name of the Government without intimating the petitioners about the intention of the Opp. Party No.2 to have their say in respect of WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 4 of 8 the intention of the Opp. Party No.2 for recording the case land in the name of the Government. 6. Now, the question arises, whether the creation of a third case (which was not the case of either party) in the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 by the Opp. Party No.2 is sustainable under law. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts 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. WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 5 of 8 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 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. 7. Here in this matter at hand, when the Opp. Party No.2 has created a third case without bringing to the notice of the parties in the Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 including the petitioners about his intention for the creation of a third case (which was not the case of either party) providing WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 6 of 8 them (parties including the petitioners) an opportunity to comment thereon, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Opp. Party No.2 in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 regarding the creation of a third case is liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is held that, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same is to be allowed. 8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. 9. The impugned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-4) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 by the Opp. Party No.2 is quashed/set aside. The matter vide Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 is remitted back to the (Opp. Party No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof within a period of three months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this Judgment by the parties before the Opp. Party No.2. WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 7 of 8 10. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Opp. Party No.2 in Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010 on dated 16.01.2026 and to file the certified copy of this Judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Opp. Party No.2 as to further proceeding of the Consolidation Revision Case No.173 of 2010. 11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is
Decision
disposed of finally. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 WP(C) No.24440 of 2019 Page 8 of 8