Orissa High Court
WP(C)/26057/2026 of TRIBHUBAN BAL Vs TAHASILDAR, RAJNAGAR, KENDRAPADA on 8 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 26057 of 2026 ODHC010613182026 Tribhuban Bal …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. M. Mishra, Advocate -Versus – Tahasildar, Rajnagar, Kendrapada and Ors …. Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 26057 of 2026
ODHC010613182026
Tribhuban Bal
….
Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. M. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus –
Tahasildar, Rajnagar, Kendrapada
and Ors
….
Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
08.09.2026
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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that your lordship is graciously pleased to admit the writ petition & issue Rule NISI to the O.Ps to show cause as to,
a) why the order dt.27.12.2016 vide Annexure-3 passed by the O.P.No.2 in R.P. Case No.355/15 will not be quashed along with M.C.No.4/23 passed by the O.P.No.1 vide Annexure-4 and the direction be given to O.P.No.2 for fresh hearing of the case by giving opportunity to all the co-sharers including the legal heirs of some of the co-sharers as reflected in Sabik R.O.R.
b) why the R.O.R. vide Annexure-6 issued in favour of O.P.No.3 to 10 & 19 to 24 on the basis of the R.S.D. No.4126 dated 09.11.1972 will not be declared illegal and the same be quashed. Order No.
1.
c) why the R.O.R. vide Annexure-7 prepared excess share of the O.P.No.3 to 10 & 19 to 24 on the basis of RSD dated 09.11.1972 will not be declared illegal and the same be quashed on the basis of order of O.P.No.2 vide Annexure-3.
d) why a direction will not be given to allow the properties in question to continue as before as per previous R.O.R. vide Annexure-5.
And if the O.Ps do not show-cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction to and any other order as deem fit be passed.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
4. It is submitted that the revision was filed by the private opposite parties before the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement without impleading him as a party, even though he is a co-sharer. It is seen that the Commissioner has allowed the revision by directing the Tahasildar, Rajnagar to implement the order.
5. Since the order was passed apparently without hearing the partitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Revisional Court by filing an application for recall of the order and for his impletion as a party. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the petitioner was required to be heard before disposal of the revision petition, he shall allow the petition for recall and implead him as a party and thereafter hear the revision afresh. It shall also be open to the petitioner to pray for appropriate interim relief, if so advised.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Deepak Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2026 17:43:06 Signature Not Verified