Kasi Prasad Modi vs Chaitnya Dev &
2023 Latest Caselaw 7814 Ori

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

AFR                    W.P(C) NO. 3229 OF 2016

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
      227 of the Constitution of India.
                            ---------------

      Kasi Prasad Modi             .....               Petitioner

                                -Versus-
      Chaitnya Dev &
      Radhakanta Deb Bada
      Matha, Puri                 .....             Opp. Parties


          For petitioner    :   M/s. Ch. Prasanta Ku. Mishra,
                                S.C. Satapathy, Ch. P.K. Mishra,
                                A.K. Parida and K.B. Kar,
                                Advocates

For opp. parties : M/s L.N. Rayatsingh, R.S. Jena and B. Mohant, Advocates (O.P.1)

Mr. A.K. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate (O.Ps.2 & 4)

M/s. S.P. Das-A & A.K. Nath, Advocates (O.P. 3)

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of hearing: 13.07.2023 :: Date of Judgment: 20.07.2023 // 2 //

DR. B.R. SARANGI,J. The petitioner, who was the opposite

party before the revisional authority, has preferred this

writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated

24.11.2015 passed in Settlement Revision Petition

No.77 of 2014 under Annexure-6, whereby the

revisional authority, i.e., Commissioner, Consolidation,

Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.2 has issued

direction that the Consolidation ROR shall be recorded

in the name of the original khewat, i.e., Sri Chaitanya

Dev and Radhakanta Dev in the Tenants Column under

the Khewatdari of "Odisha Sarkar" ignoring the stitiban

right of the family of the petitioner reflected in 1927

Settlement as well as 1977 Settlement, and that the

Endowment Commissioner, Odisha shall decide the

Trustee.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is

that the property situated in Mouza-Penthapada @

Gopalpur Patna @ Satyabadi under Satyabadi Tahasil

of District-Puri bearing Khata No.194, Plot Nos.493,

342, 347 of area Ac.0.12 dec. as per 1927 ROR

corresponding to Khata No.357, 358, Plot Nos.398, // 3 //

407/795, 497 of area Ac.0.12 dec. as per 1977 ROR

730, 740, 736/796 is the subject-matter of the case.

The said property was recorded in the name of

Satyabadi Gopinath Dev in the year 1927 under

Deregistration No.12966 which was given to Chaitanya

Dev and Radhakant Dev of village-Phula Alasa for Seva

Puja of the deity and one relative, namely, Basudev

Hota was the trustee of Satyabadi Gopinath Dev. The

caretaker of the deity Radhakant Dev handed over the

property to the petitioner in Rent Case No.22789. After

framing of new Trust Board in the year 2010, opposite

party no.1 came to know from the Revenue

Department about the transaction of the property and

filed SRP No.77 of 2014 under Section 15 of the

Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. It was

alleged by opposite party no.1 that transfer of the

property from the name of the deity to a private

person, i.e., the petitioner was illegal and the same

was done without obtaining permission from the

Endowment Commissioner under Section 19 of the

Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951

(hereinafter to be referred in short as "OHRE, Act").

// 4 //

2.1 On perusal of the record and considering

the contentions raised by the petitioner that the

aforesaid revision was filed after four decades of

publication of ROR in 1977 and Khata No.194 of 1927

was recorded in favour of Hari Ram, son of Tilak Ram

in Stitiban status and Deity Radhakanta Dev was the

Ex-proprietor, whose tenancy was vested in 1974, the

Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, found that the

property belonged to the Endowment and the

Commissioner, Endowment has not been made as a

party to the revision case. The transfer of property

belonging to the deity without express permission of

the Endowment Commissioner is illegal for all

practical purposes. The right of a marfatdari property,

which, while inheritable, is non-transferrable.

Therefore, the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 24.11.2015, directed

to record the Consolidation ROR in the name of the

original Khewat, i.e. Sri Chaitanya Dev and Radhakanta

Dev in the Tenants Column under the Khewatdari of

"Odisha Sarkar" and the Endowment Commissioner, // 5 //

Odisha shall decide the Trustee. Hence, this writ

petition.

3. Mr. S.C. Satapathy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that

the deity Chaitnya Dev is neither proprietor nor owner

of the property. Therefore, the claim made by Prafulla

Chandra Mishra as Trustee of Chaitanya Dev Badamath

has no locus standi, rather, relying upon the

documents under Annexures-2 and 7, he contended

that the deity Radhakanta Dev was the proprietor of

Deregistration No.12966 under which Khata Nos.194

and 195 were recorded in favour of Hari Ram as stitiban

tenant. The draft Khatian under Annexure-A/1 shows

the name of Radhakanta Dev, whose name was deleted,

due to abolition of intermediary interest, and

Muralidhar Modi and others recorded as stitiban

tenants. Therefore, the deity Chaitanya Dev had no

right over the case land at any point of time. It is

further contended that opposite party no.1, who was

the petitioner in SRP No.77 of 2014, filed the said case

without annexing copy of the Settlement ROR, which // 6 //

was impugned therein, and it was mandatory for him to

file the certified copy of Hal ROR as per Section 15(b) of

the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act. Due to non-

filing of the said ROR, wrong plot numbers and khata

numbers are mentioned, which resulted in passing a

defective order. More so, the deity has also not filed any

limitation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 for condoning delay of 37 years, whereas Section

15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act provides

that the revision application can be made one year from

the date of final publication of ROR or thereafter. It is

further contended that sl. no.8 of Schedule-I of the

Orissa Survey Settlement Rules, 1962 under the

heading nature of document, claim, etc. provides

application for revision under Sections 6D, 15 or 25 lies

to the Board of Revenue within two years from the date

of final publication of record sought to be revised.

Section 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act

states that subject to the provision of next following

section every appeal presented and application made

after the period of limitation specified therefor shall be

dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a // 7 //

defence. Similarly, Section 35 of the said Act states that

subject to the provisions of the Act, except Sections 6,7,

8, 9, 19 and 20, the provisions of the Limitation Act,

1963 shall apply to all appeals and applications

mentioned in Section 34. Therefore, it is contended that

the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha has passed

the impugned order without taking into consideration

the procedures and, as such, the direction given to

change of Consolidation ROR cannot be sustained in

the eye of law. In support of his contentions, he has

relied upon Fakir Gahir v. Settlement Officer, Vol.

34(1992) OJD 39 (Civil); Krushna Chandra Mahakul

v. State of Odisha, 2003(II) OLR 306; Vidya Sagar v.

Swdesh Kumar, AIR 1975 SC 2295; Biswanath Padhi

v. Tahasildar, Athagarh, 1986 (II) OLR 413 and

Durga Charan Roul v. Bhagirathi Roul, 2017 (II)

ILR CUT-1240.

4. It is of relevance to mention here, learned

counsel M/s L.N. Rayatsingh, R.S. Jena and B. Mohant

had entered appearance for opposite party no.1. But at

the time of hearing, none was present on behalf of // 8 //

opposite party no.1. However, on perusal of the record,

it appears that opposite party no.1 has filed a counter

affidavit. It has been stated therein that originally the

land belonged to Chaitanya Dev Badamatha and the

Marfatdar was Late Mahanta Krushna Chandra Das.

In the year 1927, the land in question was in the name

of Chaitanya Dev Badamatha under Deregistration

No.12966 in Mouza-Penthapada under Plot Nos.342,

347, 364 corresponding to Plot Nos.497, 370, 740,

736/796 area Ac.0.8 dec. At the time of Odisha

Estates Abolition operation, the said land was declared

as trust estates by the Sub-Judge, Puri under Section

13(D) of the Odisha Estates Abolition Act, 1951 and

the entire Deregistered plots were declared not to vest,

but at the time of 1977 settlement operation, the

petitioner entered his name in tenant column and

without paying any rent to the deity and without

intimating to the Endowment Commissioner under

Section 69 of the OHRE Act recorded his name as

tenant and deleted the name of the deity by virtue of

Rent Case No.22777 by the Assistant Settlement

Officer, Puri. Thereafter, violating the provisions of // 9 //

OHRE Act, the Settlement Officer, Puri, without

impleading the Endowment Commissioner as

necessary party, settled the land in favour of the

petitioner. Thereafter, being the trust board member,

opposite party no.1 after a research came to know that

there was no land in the name of the deity. Thus,

opposite party no.1 filed SRP Case No.77 of 2014

before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha.

Therefore, the order passed by the Settlement Officer,

Puri in settling the land in favour of the petitioner

cannot be sustained in the eye of law and

consequentially, the order dated 24.11.2015 passed by

the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha in SRP

No.77 of 2014 is well justified, which is not required

interference of this Court at this stage.

5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government

Advocate appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 4

supported the stand taken by opposite party no.1 in

its counter affidavit. He, however, vehemently

contended that law is very clear that as per the OHRE

Act, before the settlement of the schedule land in // 10 //

favour of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer, Puri

should have issued notice to the Commissioner of

Endowments as the same is mandatory, but no notice

was issued to the Endowment Commissioner before

settling the land in favour of the petitioner. On that

ground, the order passed by the Settlement Officer,

Puri in settling the land in favour of the petitioner

cannot be said to be legal in the eye of law. Under

such circumstance, the order dated 24.11.2015

passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha in

SRP No.77 of 2014 does not call for interference by

this Court.

6. Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for

opposite party-Endowments vehemently contended

that since the property belongs to the deity, without

any intimation to the Endowment Commissioner, if

any change has been made, the same cannot be

sustained in the eye of law. It is also admitted that the

land in question belonged to Chaitanya Dev Bada

Matha and the Marfatdar was Late Mahanta Krushna

Chandra Das. In the year 1927, the land in question // 11 //

was in the name of Chaitanya Dev Bada Matha under

Deregistration No.12966 in Mouza-Penthapada under

Plot Nos.342, 347, 364 corresponding to Plot Nos.497,

370, 740 and 736/796 of area Ac.0.08 dec. But the

petitioner, by playing fraud, could manage to get the

land recorded in his name, which cannot be sustained

in the eye of law. Accordingly, he contended that the

revisional authority, i.e, Commissioner, Consolidation,

Odisha is well justified in passing the order dated

24.11.2015 in SRP No.77 of 2014. As a consequence

thereof, the writ petition filed at the instance of the

petitioner should be dismissed.

7. This Court heard Mr. S.C. Satapathy,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. A.K.

Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing

for opposite parties no.2 and 4; and Mr. A.K. Nath,

learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 in

hybrid mode. Pleadings have been exchanged between

the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for

the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally

at the stage of admission.

// 12 //

8. On the basis of the pleadings available on

record as well as the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that the land

belonged to Chaitanya Dev Bada Matha and the

Marfatdar was Late Mahanta Krushna Chandra Das.

In the year 1927, the schedule land in question was in

the name of Chaitanya Dev Bada Matha under

Deregistration No.12966 in Mouza-Penthapada under

Plot No.342, 347, 364 corresponding to Plot Nos.497,

370, 740 and 736/796 of area Ac.0.12 dec. At the time

of Odisha Estates Abolition operation, the said land

was declared as trust estates by the Sub-Judge, Puri

under Section 13(D) of the Odisha Estates Abolition

Act and the entire Deregistration was declared not to

vest, but at the time of 1977 settlement operation, the

petitioner could enter his name in tenant column and

without paying any rent to the deity and without

intimating to the Endowment Commissioner under

Section 69 of the OHRE Act recorded his name as

tenant and deleted the name of the deity.

// 13 //

9. Section-69(1) of the Odisha Hindu Religious

Endowments Act, 1951 reads as follows:

"69. Notice by Court and cost of proceedings:(1) Whenever the trustee of any religious institution is sued in any Civil or Revenue Court in respect of any property belonging to or given or, endowed for the purpose of any religious institution notice of such suit shall be given by the Court concerned to the Commissioner at least a month before commencement of the hearing."

On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is very

clear that for settlement of the scheduled land in

favour of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer should

have given notice to the Endowment Commissioner

which is mandatory in nature.

10. In The Deity Sri Jagannath Swami &

Others v. Biswanath Panda, 61(1986) CLT 614, this

Court has already held that a plain reading of Section

69(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act,

1951 would show that whenever the trustee of any

religious institution is sued in respect of any property

belonging to or given or, endowed for the purpose of

any religious institution, notice of a such suit shall be

given by the Court concerned to the Commissioner of // 14 //

Endowments at least a month before commencement

of the proceeding. The Commissioner of Endowments

being the statutory authority to administer and

regulate the administration of all religious institutions,

it is necessary that he should be heard in every suit

concerning the properties belonging to the religious

institutions. The requirement of Section 69(1) of the

Act is mandatory. It, therefore, follows that it admits

no exception. The Court having found that notice

under Section 69(1) of the Act had not been issued, it

should have directed the plaintiffs to take notice to the

Commissioner of Endowments in conformity with the

requirements of Section 69(1) of the Act instead of

proceeding with the suit any further.

The said view has also been taken by this

Court in Sureswar Pujhari and Others v. Jadumani

Pujhari and Others, ILR 1974 Cutt. 187 : 40(1974)

CLT (Notes 36) 34.

Therefore, in absence of notice to the

Endowment Commissioner, which is mandatory in

nature, any action taken for recording the name of the // 15 //

present petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.

11. A contention was raised by Mr. Satapathy,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the

application filed by opposite party no.1 under Section

15(b) of the Odisha Survey & Settlement Act was

barred by limitation. Such contention of the petitioner

cannot be sustained, if the provision under Section

15(b) of the said Act is taken into consideration.

12. For just and proper adjudication of the case,

Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey & Settlement Act,

1958 is quoted below:-

"15. Revision by Board of Revenue:

Xxx xxx xxx

(b) on application, made within one year from the date of final publication under section 12-B, the revision of record-of rights or any portion thereof whether within the said period of one year or thereafter but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court under section 42:

Provided that no such direction shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter."

// 16 //

From the aforementioned provision, it is made clear that

on an application, made within one year from the date of

final publication under Section 12-B of the Act, revision

of ROR or any portion thereof has to be made within the

said period of one year or thereafter. The said provision

provides that application is to be made within a period

of one year after final publication under section-12-B

seeking for revision for record of rights or any portion

thereof. However, the meaning of the word 'or

thereafter', as mentioned in the said section, can be

construed to mean that even after one year from the

date of final publication under 15(b) of the Odisha

Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, the revision can be

filed. Thereby, no restriction can be put to file a revision

application after expiry of one year period as

contemplated under section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey

and Settlement Act, 1958 for correction of records. So

far as maintainability of revisional application is

concerned, there is no iota of doubt that such

application is maintainable even after the period of one

year of final publication under Section 12-B of the

Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

// 17 //

Thus, essentially, what is to be done in a

revision is that it is the act of examining again in order

to remove any defect or grant relief against the

irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of

jurisdiction by a lower court. If that is taken into

consideration, the question of limitation also does not

arise in a case of revision.

13. In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v.

Rangaswamy, (1980) 4 SCC 259, the apex Court held

as follows:-

"Revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence and may sometimes be exercised even without it being invoked by a party. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose of keeping tribunals subordinate to revisional tribunal within the bounds of their authority to make them act according to well defined principles of justice."

14. Therefore, on careful reading of the meaning

of revision, as discussed above, and applying the

provisions of Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and

Settlement Act, 1958, as mentioned above, it is found

that the judgment of this Court in Durga Charan

Roul (supra), of which one of us (Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.) // 18 //

is the author, on which reliance was placed by learned

counsel for the petitioner, has no assistance to the

petitioner, rather it supports the case of the opposite

parties.

15. Much reliance was placed on the provisions

of Sections 34 & 35 of the Odisha Survey and

Settlement Act, 1958, which read as follows:

"34.Limitation for application-Subject to the provisions of the next following section every appeal presented and application made after the period of limitation specified therefor shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

35. Application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908-Subject to the provisions of this Act the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, IX of 1908, except sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20 shall apply to all appeals and applications mentioned in section 34."

On perusal of the provisions contained in Section 34 of

the Act, as mentioned above, it is made clear that

subject to the provisions of the next following section

every appeal presented and application made after the

period of limitation specified therefor shall be

dismissed on the ground of limitation. Looking at

Section 35 of the said Act, it is made clear that the

provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Indian // 19 //

Limitation Act will be applied to all the appeals and

applications mentioned in Section 34 except sections

6, 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20. But admittedly any application

filed under Section 15(b) cannot be construed as an

appeal. Rather, it is a revision and the revision has

been filed by a party. Under Section 15(b) it has been

specifically mentioned that on an application made

within one year from the date of final publication

under Section 12(B) of the Act, the revision of ROR or

any portion thereof whether within the said period of

one year or thereafter but not so as to affect the order

passed by a civil court under Section 42. Therefore,

using expression "thereafter" the period of limitation,

which has been prescribed for one year from the date

of final publication under Section 12(B), has been

extended, as has already been discussed above in

Durga Charan Roul (supra), wherein it has been

specifically held that no specific limitation will apply

and that has also been fortified by the judgment of this

Court in Krushna Chandra Mahakul v. State of

Orissa and Others, 2003(II) OLR 306, which clearly

states that under Section 15(b) this Court has already // 20 //

held even after expiry of the period of one year of the

date of publication of ROR under Section 12(B), the

Commissioner can revise the ROR and even if the

petitioner has not been able to explain sufficiently the

entire period of delay in filing the revision, his revision

should not be thrown out only on the ground of delay

in filing the revision beyond the period of one year.

Furthermore, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

sufficient cause has to be shown for not preferring the

appeal or making an application, as the case may be,

within the period prescribed, but under Section 15(b)

of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act there is no

such requirement.

16. In view of such position, the contention

raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

that the revision application filed by opposite party no.1

under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and

Settlement Act is barred by limitation cannot be

sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, this Court

disallows such plea and answers the same in favour of

opposite party no.1.

// 21 //

17. The further plea advanced by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner is that in view of judgment

of the apex Court in Vidya Sagar (supra), which has

been referred to in Biswanath Padhi (supra), the deity

being an intermediary/Ex-proprietor and the said

intermediary estate having vested in State of Odisha,

the deity has no right to record its name in tenant

column, as its proprietary right has disappeared by

operation of law. Such an extreme argument advanced

by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no

basis, in view of the fact that by playing fraud, the

petitioner has entered his name in the tenant column in

1977 settlement operation without paying any rent to

the deity and without intimating to the Endowment

Commissioner under Section 69 of the OHRE Act and

deleted the name of the deity. Needless to say, in OEA

operation, the said land was declared as trust estates

by the learned Sub-Judge, Puri under Section 13(D) of

the OEA Act and the entire land was Deregistered not

to vest being a trust property. Therefore, the benefit

has been accrued to the petitioner by playing fraud by

entering his name in the settlement operation.

// 22 //

18. The apex Court has dealt with the meaning

of 'fraud' in Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros, (1992) 1

SCC 534, which has also been referred to in Roshan

Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100, Ram Preeti

Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and

Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311 and

Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC 1.

19. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi,

(2003) 8 SCC 319, the apex Court held as follows:-

"Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with // 23 //

fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application f any equitable doctrine including res-judicata."

The said principle has also been referred to by this

Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Chinera v.

Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum

Corpn., 2022 (II) ILR CUT-504. The said view has also

been taken by the apex Court in Bhaurao Dagdu

Parlakar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605.

20. In view of such position, it is made clear that

'fraud' as is well-known vitiates every solemn act.

'Fraud' and justice never dwells together and 'fraud' is a

conduct either by letter or words, which induces the

other person, or authority to take a definite

determinative stand as a response to the conduct of

former either by word or letter. It is also well settled

that misrepresentation also amounts to 'fraud'.

Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner that

property has been vested with the Government and the

name of the deity has been deleted cannot have any

justification, rather the insertion of the name of the

petitioner in 1977 settlement operation by playing fraud // 24 //

on the authority and without intimating Endowment

Commissioner, as required under Section 69 of the

ORHE Act, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

21. It is of relevance to note that in O.A. No.17 of

2002, which was filed by the Executive Officer,

Satyabadi, Gopinath Jew Bije Temple in respect of the

property mentioned in Annexure-A/3 to the writ

petition, a petition under Order-6 Rule-17 of CPC was

filed for amendment in respect of Khata No.194, 22, 70,

216 and Plot No.408 and other 12 Plots No.336, 396,

730, 735/793, 409, 408 and 724 as the said property

belongs to Chaitanya Dev. Nothing has been placed on

record that whether the said O.A. has been disposed of

in the meantime. Thereby, the revisional authority, i.e.

Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, vide order dated

24.11.2015 passed in SRP No.77 of 2014, directed to

record the Consolidation ROR in the name of original

Khewat, i.e. Sri Chaitanya Dev and Radhakanta Dev in

the Tenants Column under the Khewatdari of "Odisha

Sarkar" and the Endowment Commissioner, Odisha

shall decide the Trustee.

// 25 //

22. In the above view of the matter, this Court

does not find any error in the order dated 24.11.2015

passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar in SRP No.77 of 2014 so as to cause

interference.

23. In the result, therefore, the writ petition

merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.

But, however, under the circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                             (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                  JUDGE


            M.S. RAMAN, J.                  I agree.


                                                               (M.S. RAMAN)
                                                                   JUDGE




                           Orissa High Court, Cuttack
                           The 20th July, 2023, Alok




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 20-Jul-2023 14:12:19