RVWPET/4/2022 of URMILA MOHAPATRA Vs COLLECTOR,PURI on 7 August 2026

ORDER

Order No. 07.08.2026

17.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This RVWPET has been filed seeking review of order dated 13th February, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020 by which, this Court directed the Tahasildar, Satyabadi to carry out the direction under order dated 18the December, 2015 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in RP No.165 of 2014 under Section 37 (1) of the Odisha Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for brevity, ‘OCH and PFL Act’).

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review Petitioners submits that the writ petition was filed suppressing material facts and without impleading the necessary parties to the writ petition. Since the review Petitioners wee not made parties to the writ petition and were not provided with any opportunity of hearing, they had no knowledge of order sought to

// 2 //

be reviewed. It is further submitted that the review Petitioners were not made parties before the Commissioner of Consolidation in RP No.165 of 2014, although before filing of the RP Case before the Commissioner, Consolidation under Section 37 (1) of the OCH and PFL Act by Lingaraj Sahoo/writ Petitioner (Opposite Party No.3 herein) since dead, his legal heirs have been substituted as Opposite Party Nos.3(a) and 3(b).

4. The review Petitioners had purchased different portions of property in question and recorded the same in their name respectively under Annexure-7 series. The writ petition was disposed of on 13th February, 2020. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, Lingaraj Sahoo, the writ Petitioner filed CONTC No.3081 of 2021. Upon receipt of notice in the Contempt proceeding, Tahasildar, Satyabadi issued notice to the writ Petitioner for appearance in order to carry out the order passed in W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020. Only after receiving the notice dated 15th November, 2021 afresh under Annexure-5, Tahasildar, Satyabadi came to know about the order passed by this Court, as aforesaid and then the Review Petition was filed.

4.1 Delay in filing the Review Petition has already been condoned vide order dated 14th August, 2025 passed in IA No.6 of 2022. By that time, said Lingaraj Sahoo was dead and his legal heirs-Opposite Party Nos.3(a) and 3(b) were substituted in his place. Accordingly, notice in the Review Petition issued to Opposite Party Nos.3(a) and 3(b). Vide order dated 14th August, 2025, this Court held the notice on Opposite Party Nos.3(a) and

// 3 //

3(b) to be sufficient, as the notice on Opposite Party No.3(a) was validly served and notice of Opposite Party No.3(b) returned un- served due to his refusal to receive the notice. As such, notice on Opposite Parties are treated to be sufficient.

5. None appears for Opposite Party Nos.3(a) and 3 (b) to pursue/contest the Review Petition.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Review Petitioners submits that the land in question was originally recorded in the name of one Madhusudan Ghosh, who in turn, for his legal necessity, sold the land to one Bhagirathi Mallik (review Petitioner No.3) purchased the case land and recorded his name in respect of the same. Ultimately, the Petitioners purchased the case land from Bhagirathi Mallik through different sale deeds and got the land mutated in their names. Much thereafter, said Lingaraj Sahoo filed the revision under Section 37 (1) of OCH and PFL Act to record the land in his name. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Consolidation, without examining the matter and issuing notice, directed to record the land in government Khata.

6.1 It is his submission that had the review Petitioners been given an opportunity in the writ petition to put forth their case, the outcome would have been different. These relevant facts were suppressed by said Lingaraj Sahoo, the predecessor of present Opposite Party Ns.3(a) and 3(b). Hence, he seeks review of the order and give the review Petitioners an opportunity of hearing in the writ petition.

// 4 //

7. It is further submitted that in the meantime, Petitioners had also challenged the said order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in RP No.165 of 2014, in W.P.(C) No.1293 of 2022, wherein, while issuing notice vide order dated 15th February, 2022, an interim order of status quo has been passed in IA No.646 of 2022. He, therefore, prays for recalling of order dated 13th February, 2020 passed hearing of W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020 afresh.

8. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC does not dispute the factual position as submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate. He, however, submits that Tahasildar, Satyabadi has committed no error in initiating the proceeding to record the land in favour of the government pursuant to order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in RP Case No.165 of 2014 in terms of the direction in W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020 and CONTC No.3081 of 2021. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the RVWPET.

9. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the land in question have been recorded in the name of the present review Petitioners before filing of RP No.165 of 2014 by said Lingaraj Sahoo under Section 37 (1) of the OCH and PFL Act. It further appears that the review Petitioners were neither made parties to the RP No.165 of 2014 before the Commissioner, Consolidation nor before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court

// 5 //

finds that the review Petitioners are necessary parties to the writ petition, who were not provided any opportunity of hearing.

10. In view of the above, this Court recalls order dated 13th February, 2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020 and directs hearing of W.P.(C) No.1345 of 2020 afresh providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the review Petitioners.

11. The RVWPET is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy