Orissa High Court
WP(C)/22409/2026 of SRITAM DAS Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22409 of 2026 ODHC010500182026 Sritam Das ….. Petitioner Mr. S. Nath, Advocate -Versus - State of Odisha and Others ..… Opp.Parties Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 08.09.2026 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 22409 of 2026
ODHC010500182026
Sritam Das
…..
Petitioner
Mr. S. Nath, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and Others
..…
Opp.Parties
Mrs. J. Sahoo,
Additional 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 Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. As directed, learned counsel for the petitioner produces copy of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in Objection Case No.6545 of 2013.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the publication of not-final Hal R.O.R. by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 11.03.2013. The said not-final R.O.R. is recorded in the name of the G.A. Department. The petitioner, desiring to file appeal under Section 22(2) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, approached the Addl. Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar but his memorandum of appeal is not being entertained.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that appeal against such publication was being accepted till August 2025, but not thereafter.
6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless he is permitted to prefer an appeal, he would be seriously prejudiced Order No.
2. as the land has been recorded in the name of the G.A. Department.
7. Since, according to the petitioner, his valuable right has been infringed by publication of not-final Hal R.O.R., the writ petition is disposed of granting him liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned appellate authority within ten days from today. If such an appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the application for condonation of delay shall be considered at the first instance.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Puspanjali Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 08-Sep-2026 18:32:51 Signature Not Verified