Orissa High Court
Kalakar Pradhan & Another vs The Commissioner on 26 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.27213 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Kalakar Pradhan & Another ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
The Commissioner, C & S, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack & Another ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.27213 of 2025 Page 1 of 4 Date of Hearing : 26.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for directing the Tahasildar, Aul (Opp. Party No.2) to carry out (implementation of) the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in R.P. No.311 of 2015 by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.1). Because, till yet, in spite of direction by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.1) as per order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Revision Petition No.311 of 2015 to the Tahasildar, Aul (Opp. Party No.2) to conduct field enquiry in presence of the petitioners and affected land owners and effect correction of impugned area and map WP(C) No.27213 of 2025 Page 2 of 4 accordingly and to implement that order within two months, the Tahasildar has not implemented the said order.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opp. Parties.
3. The law relating to the scope of interference of the High Court in the matter of non-implementation of the directions of the superior officers of the Government to their sub-ordinate officers has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision of the Apex Court.
In a case between Jayamma & Others Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, Dist., Hassan & Others (Para No.10) reported in III (2013) CLT 94 (SC) that, "if a subordinate authority in the Government does not act in terms of the directions or instructions issued by the superior authority, it is not for the High Court to compel that subordinate authority to comply with the instruction or directions issued by the superior authority of the Government. Because, High Court is not the executing forum of instructions or directions issued by the superior officers of the Government. It is the duty of the superior officers of the Government (who had directed the sub-ordinate officer) to see that, their orders are properly implemented, but not the High Court to implement their directions or orders." WP(C) No.27213 of 2025 Page 3 of 4
4. So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court to this matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Opp. Party No.1 filing an application annexing the certified copy of this Judgment praying for implementation of the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Opp. Party No.1 in R.P. No.311 of 2015 and if after filing of such application before the Opp. Party No.1, there is no response by the Opp. Party No.1 to the same, then, the petitioners can approach the High Court seeking appropriate relief for the same.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 27-Sep-2025 10:34:52 WP(C) No.27213 of 2025 Page 4 of 4