Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8907/2026 of KUNTALA CHHANDA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 21 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8907 OF 2026 Kuntala Chhanda …. Petitioner Mr. Anubhab Mahakud, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8907 OF 2026
Kuntala Chhanda
….
Petitioner
Mr. Anubhab Mahakud, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opp. Parties
Mrs. Suman Pattanayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
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.
ORDER
Order No. 21.07.2026
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to inaction of the Tahasildar, Athmallik-Opposite Party No.4 in entertaining her application for grant of permission to alienate the leasehold property granted in favour of her husband.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Mahakud, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the husband of the Petitioner namely Jati Chhanda was granted a lease of Plot No.54/161 of Khata No.21/7 to an extent of Ac 1.8000 decimals, situated in Mouza Ketakijharana under Athmallik Tahasil in the district of Anugola (for brevity, ‘the case land’).
3.1. Accordingly, the Record of Rights under Annexure-1 was issued in favour of her husband with an endorsement that the lessee cannot alienate the property for a period of 10 years with effect from 17.09.1981 without prior permission of the Revenue Officer. After death of her husband, the Petitioner being a senior citizen and no source of income was in acute need of money, for which she intended to alienate the case land.
3.2. Accordingly, she made an application to the Tahasildar, Athmallik for grant of permission to alienate the case land. Such application was filed on 01.12.2025 (Annexure-4), but no decision has been taken on the same as yet. Thus, the Petitioner finding no other alternatives has filed this writ application for a direction to the Tahasildar, Athmallik for grant of permission to alienate the case land.
4. Mrs. Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that she has no instruction in the matter.
5. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties as well as facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that in view of order proposed to be passed, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending awaiting response from the State Counsel.
6. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner for grant of permission to alienate the case land, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event the Petitioner makes a fresh application within a period of two weeks hence to the Tahasildar, Athmallik-Opposite Party No.4, for grant of permission to alienate the leasehold property (case land) along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks therefrom and result thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith.
6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge Banita Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jul-2026 17:20:21 Signature Not Verified