Orissa High Court
WP(C)/16592/2026 of BHOLANATH SAHU Vs TAHASILDAR , ATTABIRA, BARAGARH on 10 September 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16592 of 2026 ODHC010387372026 Bholanath Sahu and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Mr.J. Dash, Advocate -versus- Tahasildar, Attabira and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Mr. G. Mohanty, S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16592 of 2026
ODHC010387372026
Bholanath Sahu and
others
.....
Petitioners
Represented by
Mr.J. Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
Tahasildar, Attabira and others
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by
Mr. G. Mohanty, S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
10.9.2026.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners preferred O.L.R. Revision Case No.1/2024 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha. Such revision was admittedly preferred after long delay. The delay was
// 2 //
sought to be explained under Paragraph-4 of the revision petition. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, however rejected the revision on the ground of delay by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81. After referring to such judgment, it was abruptly held that no satisfactory cause is shown to justify the delay in filing the revision, which remains unexplained and uncondoned. Obviously, the learned Member has not referred to the explanation submitted under Paragraph-4 of the Revision Petition. It cannot be said that no explanation was submitted. Whether such explanation is acceptable or not is a different matter. This Court is of the considered view that it was open to the learned Member to consider the explanation so submitted and pass a reasoned order.
4. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Member Board of Revenue to consider the limitation aspect afresh by passing a reasoned order.
(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge AKB
Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:04:11 Signature Not Verified