WP(C)/17263/2026 of GAURANG CHARAN SENAPATI Vs COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION, ORISSA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for both the Parties.

2. By means of this Application, the Petitioner seeks a direction calling upon the Opposite Parties for correction of RoR in respect to Consolidated Plot Nos.475, 559, 348, 238, 650 with areas & map and he further seeks direction to demarcate the land accordingly.

3. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing in the Application, drew the attention of the Court that the subject land of which he is the recorded tenant by virtue of order in Revision Case Nos.1477 of 2006 & 1478 of 2006 was directed to be fragmented into 10 Chaka.

4. The order having been passed to that effect by the Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner being aggrieved, moved before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-II, Cuttack, in Appeal Nos.25 of 2008 & 26 of 2008, wherein the Appellate Authority disposed of both the Appeals vide order dated 28.08.2008 with the observations as under:

“Hence in view of the above observations, these appeals are remanded back to the Lower Court for fresh adjudication as per above observations and also giving due opportunity to all the affected parties of being heard and also to issue notice to the members of the consolidation committee and consult them and dispose of the case as per law.”

5. Pursuant whereof, the Consolidation Officer took up the matter for hearing in Remand Appeal Case Nos.25 of 2008 & 26 of 2008 and passed order on 22.02.2010 and disposed of the same as under: “In view of the cumulative facts and circumstances as above, I declined to interfere in the order dated 01.03.2008 passed in Remand Revision Petition No.1478 of 2006 only with a change that Chaka No.232/1, Chaka Plot No.1286/1 be deleted in amalgamating the same with Chaka No.198, Chaka Plot No.1224 & the area of this Chaka be recorded as AC 0.80 instead of AC 0.24 since both the Chakas are adjacent to and allowed to the land owner Fagu Sethy. The trace map & land schedule from a part of the case record. Accordingly, the remand Appeal Case Nos.25 of 2008 & 26 of 2008 are disposed of and ordered accordingly.”

6. The aforesaid order was passed by the Consolidation Officer (C.O.), taking in the account the report of the Consolidation Committee dated 25.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Consolidation Officer (C.O.), the Petitioner once again moved in Appeal Case Nos.1 of 2010 & 2 of

2010. Opposite Party No.3, i.e., the Joint Director, Consolidation Range-III, Cuttack, in the aforesaid Appeal, vide order dated 20.09.2017, once again remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) for fresh disposal in accordance with the direction issued by the Deputy Director, Consolidation passed in Appeal Case Nos.25 of 2008 & 26 of 2008.

7. Subsequently, the Remand Appeal Nos.1 of 2010 & 2 of 2010 were taken up by the Additional Sub-Collector, Cuttack wherein he passed order on 11.02.2020 as under:

“Hence the remand Appeal Nos.01 of 2010 and 02 of 2010 are allowed in favour of the Appellants. The claims of the Petitioners to R.P. Case Nos.1478 of 2006 & 1479 of 2006 (learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case number ought to have 1477 of 2006) are disallowed. Chaka No.232, plot No.1286 Ac.1.12 dec. finally prepared and published under Khata No.559 be kept intact as such. All the modifications done as per earlier order of the Consolidation Officer, Niali in R.R.C. No.1478 of 2006 & 1479 of 2006 ( the number ought to have been read as 1477 of 2006) along with order passed in Remand Appeal Nos.25 of 2008 & 26 of 2008 has been effected in final R.O.R Nos. 475, 559, 348, 234 & 650 be corrected as per final R.O.R prepared and published U/s 22(2) of the Act. Map corrected according to the above orders may be deleted from final map as per vernacular order passed below.”

8. Pursuant to this order passed by the Additional Sub- Collector, Cuttack, the RoR ought to have been corrected and map prepared by the Authority of the Additional Sub-Collector, Cuttack, but till date, the Authority has neither gone for the correction of RoR nor for preparation of the corrected map.

9. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing, fails to substantiate, on query, made by this Court as to if any step has been taken before the Authority for the correction of RoR and/or preparation of the map pursuant to the order passed as above. He reluctantly submits that he does not have any material to substantiate the fact.

10. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is directed that the Writ Application is disposed of with a liberty to the Petitioner to move the Authority for implementation of its order passed as stated above within an outer limit of three (03) months.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2026 15:07:33 Signature Not Verified