Pranesh Chandra Tarafdar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10831 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pranesh Chandra Tarafdar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 9 December, 2025

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.30204 of 2025

              (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
        of India, 1950)


              Pranesh Chandra Tarafdar                ....         Petitioner


                                           -versus-
              State of Odisha and others              ....   Opposite Parties




                    Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                              (Virtual/Physical Mode):
                      For Petitioner   -       Mr. P. Mohanty,
                                               Sr. Advocate.

                      For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak,
                                               Learned Additional Sanding Counsel

                      CORAM:
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
          Date of Hearing :09.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :09.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J.       This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

        Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying

        for    quashing(setting    aside)     the     impugned      order     dated

        13.10.2022(Annexure-5) passed in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of

                                                                        Page 1 of 5
 2015 by the Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Jobra at

Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2).

2.    I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3.    During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order

dated 13.10.2022(Annexure-5) in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of

2015 has been passed by the Opposite Party No.2 without serving

any notice on the petitioner,

      The draft RoR of the case land was prepared in the name of

the mother of the petitioner, i.e., Kanakalata Tarafdar. Kanakalata

Tarafdar was the purchaser of the case land. The mother of the

petitioner, i.e., Kanakalata Tarafdar expired in the year 2004 leaving

behind the petitioner and others as her successors. After the death of

the mother of the petitioner in the year 2004, the case land left by her

devolved upon the petitioner and others, i.e., upon her successors.

For which, before passing the impugned order on dated

13.10.2022

(Annexure-5) in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015,

notices of the said Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 should

have been issued by the Opposite Party No.2 to all the successors of

Kanakalata Tarafdar including the petitioner, but, no notice has been

served on any of the successors of Kanakalata Tarafdar including the

petitioner in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 by the

Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2). So,

according to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, the impugned order vide Annxure-7 is bad and illegal

under law for non-compliance of the principle of nature justice. For

which, the same is liable to be quashed. Because, the impugned

order dated 13.10.2022 vide Anenxure-5 passed in Suo Motu Appeal

Case No.22 of 2015 by the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack

(Opposite Party No.2) does not reveal about the service of any notice

either on the petitioner or any of the successors of Kanakalata

Tarafdar.

4. So, due to non-service of any notice upon the petitioner or any

of the successors of Kanakalata Tarafdar for passing the impugned

order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of

2015 by the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite Party

No.2), the said impugned order vide Annexure-5 cannot be

sustainable under law on the ground of non-compliance of the

principles of natural justice.

5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure-5)

passed in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 by the Settlement

Officer, Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) is liable to quashed

making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by

the Petitioner.

6. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the

petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on

contest.

8. The impugned order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in

Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 by the Settlement Officer,

Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) is quashed(set aside).

The matter vide Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 is

remitted back to the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite

Party No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving

notice to all the successors of Kanajalata Tarafdar and providing

them opportunity of hearing.

9. The parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before

the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) in

Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 on dated 22.12.2025 for the

purpose of receiving the directions of the Settlement Officer, Jobra

at Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) as to further proceedings of the

Suo Motu Appeal Case No.22 of 2015 and to file the certified copy

of this judgment for the disposal of the appeal.

10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed

of finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

Designation: Personal Assistant