Orissa High Court
WP(C)/27351/2026 of RABINDRA KUMAR MALLICK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 10 September 2026
g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.27351 of 2026 ODHC010649192026 Rabindra Kumar Mallick & Anr …. Petitioners Represented by Mr. L.Samantaray, Sr. Advocate With Mr. M.Das, Advocate -Versus - State of Odisha & Ors …. Opposite Party Represented by Mr.
1 | P a g e
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.27351 of 2026
ODHC010649192026
Rabindra Kumar
Mallick & Anr
….
Petitioners
Represented by
Mr. L.Samantaray, Sr. Advocate
With Mr. M.Das, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha & Ors
….
Opposite Party
Represented by
Mr. A.R.Dash,
A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
10.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OEA(S)Bebandobasta Case No. 309 of 2016. The petitioners claim to have acquired title over the property in question by way of purchase from the recorded owners. However, at the time of hearing, despite being granted time by the Court below, the petitioners could not produce the Sabik ROR for some reason. The case was therefore, dropped for such default on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners, while challenging the said order before this Court have filed a copy of the Sabik ROR as well as the registered sale deed dated 07.04.1964. It is submitted by Mr. L.Samantaray, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that if the petitioners are granted an opportunity, they can produce these documents before the Tahasildar to establish the flow Order No.
01. 2 | P a g e
of title in their favour.
3. Learned State counsel submits that despite being granted opportunity, they failed to produce the relevant documents and therefore, no further opportunity should be granted.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents filed in the case, this Court is of the view that there being prima facie proof that the petitioners have some semblance of right over the suit property, it would be proper to afford them an opportunity to prove their case by filing the necessary documents before the Tahasildar.
4. In such view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the Tahasildar seeking recall of the impugned order along with the documents proving the flow of title in their favour. If such application is filed within fifteen days, the Tahasildar shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge
Deepak Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:03:47 Signature Not Verified