WP(C)/23549/2026 of BISHNU CHARAN SWAIN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner (Settlement & Consolidation), Kendrapara in R.C. No.19 of 2018, a copy whereof has been placed at Annexure-7 of the writ application.

3. In course of the hearing in the application, the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner (Settlement & Consolidation), wherein the said court while disposing the R.C. Case No.19 of 2018 observed as under: - “On comparison of Hal-Sabik map, there appears to be discrepancies & does not require correction from Hal Plot No.2377. The length and width of the Sabik Plot No. 1886 comparing that of the Hal Plot No.2377 appears to be same through measurement on map of Hal Khata No. 1141 of Mouza- Beltal under Pattamundai Tahasil.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the observations made in the impugned order goes to show that the Petitioner did not file the registered sale deed, so also, the documents showing the index corresponding to the Sabik and Hal Plots. There was also no material before the said authority as regards the manner in which the vendor of the Petitioner got the land in his favour when the same was under “Nijdakhal” status. It is vehemently submitted that, in the absence of the documents referred to in the impugned order, it was not possible for the said authority to effectively adjudicate the matter, whereas the Commissioner disposed of the application without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the requisite documents in order to make good the deficiencies for an effective adjudication of the matter.

5. Admittedly, while disposing of the revision, the Petitioner had not filed the relevant documents referred to in the impugned Judgment. This shows the authority relied upon the averments made in the application of the Petitioner and therefore hardly any scope to decide the Revision on merits of the case. A summary disposal of Revision where it involves the substantive right of the Party is hardly expected from a statutory authority. The authority ought to have gone into the matter and decided the substantive right of the Parties.

6. In the above circumstances, while disposing the writ application at the stage of admission, it is directed that the matter in respect to the R.C. Case No.19 of 2018 be restored to the file of the Court and an opportunity be given to the Petitioner to substantiate his claim on the basis of the record referred to as observed by the impugned Judgment and to facilitate the Petitioner allowing an opportunity to put forth his case. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek adjournment to file the documents and shall produce the record, if any, as observed in the impugned order on the very first day of his appearance before the court and the matter shall be heard on merit and disposed of within an outer limit of six (06) months, if there be no other legal impediment.

7. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Commissioner on 21st of September 2026 to receive further instruction. As a necessary corollary, the impugned Judgment and order dated 19.01.2026 is set aside.

8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 02-Sep-2026 16:15:12 Signature Not Verified