Orissa High Court
Rina Pattanaik vs State Of Orissa on 2 January, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14069 of 2002
&
W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2022
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
*****
In W.P.(C) No.14069 of 2022
Rina Pattanaik .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. 1. State of Orissa
2. 2. Priyanka Pattanaik
3. 3. Payal Pattanaik
4. 4. Adyashree Pattanaik
5. 5. Jayashree Pattanaik
6. 6. Lopamudra Pattanaik .... Opp. Parties
In W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2022
Rina Pattanaik .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. 1. State of Orissa
2. 2. Priyanka Pattanaik
3. 3. Payal Pattanaik
4. 4. Adyashree Pattanaik
5. 5. Jayashree Pattanaik
6. 6. Lopamudra Pattanaik .... Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
being assisted by Mr. Prafulla Ch. Biswal,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dash,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) Nos.14069 of 2022 & 14992 of 2022 Page 1 of 6
// 2 //
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 02.01.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. These two writ petitions have been filed assailing the
orders of the Sub-Collector, Athgarh. Since subject matter of
dispute in both the writ petitions is one and the same and parties
to the writ petitions are same, both are taken up together for
disposal on consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. W.P.(C) No.14069 of 2022 has been filed assailing the
order dated 07.05.2022 under Annexure-6 passed by the Sub-
Collector, Athgarh in Vesting Appeal Case No.1 of 2022
rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner challenging
maintainability of the Appeal.
4. W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2022 has been filed assailing the
final order dated 04.06.2022 under Annexure-4 passed in the
aforesaid Vesting Appeal whereby order dated 27.12.1975 and
order dated 02.07.1976 passed by the OEA Collector-cum-
Tahasildar, Athgarh in Debottar Vesting Misc. Case No.1791 of
1974 have been set-aside.
5. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing
along with Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate submits that
the Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late Raghunath Pattanaik
// 3 //
in whose favour the land in question was settled in Debottar
Vesting Misc. Case No.1791 of 1974 and accordingly rent was
assessed. He was paying the rent in respect of the land in
question during his life time. His son namely, Sarbajit Pattanaik
(husband of the Petitioner) was also paying rent in respect of the
land in question. After the death of the recorded tenant, the
Petitioner along with other co-sharers are enjoying the property
exercising their right, title and interest thereon on payment of
rent. Final record-of-right in respect of the land in question has
also been published in the name of late Raghunath Pattanaik
under Annexure-2. The said record-of-right still holds the field
having not been set aside by any competent court of law.
At this juncture, the Sub-Collector, Athgarh after a lapse
of more than 47 years initiated Vesting Appeal No.1 of 2022 on
the prayer of the Tahasildar, Athgarh. No petition for
condonation of delay of 47 years was submitted along with the
Appeal memo. Further the Sub-Collector, Athgarh did not have
the competence or jurisdiction to entertain such Appeal.
6. An application to that effect was filed by the Petitioner
raising objections with regard to the maintainability of the
Appeal before the Sub-Collector, Athgarh as well as delay of 47
years in preferring the same.
7. Without considering the objections raised by the
Petitioner, the Sub-Collector, Athgarh rejected the petition vide
order dated 07.05.2022 under Annexure-6 and assailing the same,
the Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.14069 of 2022.
// 4 //
8. During pendency of the writ petition, final order was
passed by the Sub-Collector, Athgarh in Vesting Appeal Case
No.1 of 2022 on 04.06.2022 vide Annexure-4 to W.P.(C)
No.14992 of 2022.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that under Section 9 of the Orissa Estates Abolition
Act, 1951 (for brevity, „the Act‟) an Appeal is maintainable
before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack against the order
passed under Sections 3, 3-B, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 8-A of the Act. The
Sub-Collector while adjudicating the matter neither referred to
the provision by virtue of which the Appeal was entertained nor
he considered the objections with regard to its competence to
entertain such an Appeal, after 47 years of settlement of the land
in favour of late Raghunath Pattanaik, father-in-law of the
Petitioner as already noted. He therefore, submits that the
impugned orders in both the writ petitions are not sustainable and
are liable to be set aside.
10. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate
referring to the counter affidavit submits that although the Sub-
Collector, Athgarh did not refer to any provision of law under
which he entertained the Vesting Appeal No.1 of 2022 but had
the jurisdiction and competence to entertain such an Appeal.
Illegality committed in settling the land in favour of late
Raghunath Pattanaik could be challenged at any point of time
once it came to the knowledge of the authority. He further
submits that in view of the averments made in the counter
affidavit with regard to the merits of the case, no fruitful purpose
// 5 //
would be served in setting aside both the orders challenged in
these writ petitions.
11. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court finds that Section 9 of the Act provides
the remedy of Appeal against the order passed under Sections 3,
3-B, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 8-A of the Act. The Sub-Collector, Athgarh has
not stated in the impugned orders under which provision of law
he entertained the Appeal. When objections with regard to
maintainability and limitation were raised, the Sub-Collector was
obligated under law to deal with the same while passing the order
dated 07.05.2022. The Sub-collector, Athgarh in impugned order
dated 07.05.2022 after recording the rival contentions of the
parties jumped to the conclusion that he had "sufficient
jurisdiction" to adjudicate the appeal. Neither the scope of
Section 9 of the Act was discussed nor the objections raised by
the Petitioner in the petition challenging the maintainability of
the Appeal before the Sub-Collector, Athgarh and delay of 47
years in entertaining such Appeal were taken into account.
As such the order dated 07.05.2022 under Annexure-6 in
W.P.(C) No.14069 of 2022 is not sustainable and is hereby set-
aside.
12. On a conspectus of the pleadings and taking into
account the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view
that the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 under Annexure-4 in
W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2022 is also not sustainable as it prima
facie appears that the Sub-Collector, Athgarh had no jurisdiction
// 6 //
to entertain the Appeal (Vesting Appeal No.1 of 2022) that too
after a lapse of 47 years.
13. In view of the above, the orders impugned in both the
writ petitions are set aside.
14. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector, Athgarh to
adjudicate the maintainability of the Appeal at the first instance
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
If the Appeal is held to be maintainable then the Sub-
Collector, Athgarh may proceed with the hearing of the same on
merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.
The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Issue urgent certified copy of the judgment on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 2nd of January, 2025/Ayesha
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-Jan-2025 10:45:51
