Orissa High Court
Gantasethy Rama Rao vs State Of Odisha And Others on 21 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.248 of 2024, W.P.(C) Nos.41475, 41476, 41479, 42144, 42146, 42149, 42863,
42867, 42869 of 2023, W.P.(C) Nos.216, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 1676, 1693, 1697,
1702, 1705, 1776, 1798, 1802, 1804 & 1690 of 2024
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
W.P.(C) No.248 of 2024
Gantasethy Rama Rao ..... Petitioner
Represented By
Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate.
for O.P. No.4
W.P.(C) No.41475 of 2023
K. Tripati Patra Represented By
Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for
O.P. No.4
W.P.(C) No.41476 of 2023
Chinam Geetanjali Patro @ Ch. Represented By
Geetanjali Patro Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for O.P. No.4
Page 1 of 17
W.P.(C) No.41479 of 2023
Parmod Kumar Agarwal Represented By
Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for
O.P. No.4
W.P.(C) No.42144 of 2023
Kusum Agrawal Represented By
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Punei Hontal @ Girem and .....
others Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
for the Opposite Party No.1
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
W.P.(C) No.42146 of 2023
Sricharan Padhiary Represented By
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Punei Hontal @ Girem and .....
others Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
for the Opposite Party No.1
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
W.P.(C) No.42149 of 2023
Partha Sarathi Rout Represented By
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Punei Hontal @ Girem and .....
others Opposite Parties
Page 2 of 17
Represented By
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
for the Opposite Party No.1
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
W.P.(C) No.42863 of 2023
Mami Pattanaik Represented By
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate & Mr.
S. Sahoo, Advocate.
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.6
W.P.(C) No.42867 of 2023
Sangita Debi Represented By
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate
& Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.6
W.P.(C) No.42869 of 2023
Nikhila Bharati Bishoyi Represented By
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate
& Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.6
Page 3 of 17
W.P.(C) No.216 of 2024
Gantasethy Joga Rao Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.242 of 2024
Maheswar Choudhury Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.243 of 2024
Purnabasi Sahoo Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.244 of 2024
Bansidhar Nayak Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Page 4 of 17
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.245 of 2024
Debahari Pradhan Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.246 of 2024
Namita Pradhan Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.247 of 2024
Gantasethy Prakash Represented By
Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
Page 5 of 17
W.P.(C) No.1676 of 2024
Balakrishna Maharana Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1693 of 2024
Lambadhar Sahu @ Lambodhar Represented By
Sahu Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1697 of 2024
Ranjit Kumar Patnaik Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1702 of 2024
Epili Niranjan Senapati Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Page 6 of 17
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1705 of 2024
Sunyabashi Biswal Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1776 of 2024
Prakash Padhiary Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1798 of 2024
Raju Sahu Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1802 of 2024
Anjali Devi Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
Page 7 of 17
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1804 of 2024
Geetanjali Moharana Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
W.P.(C) No.1690 of 2024
Sanjukta Sahu Represented By
Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .....
Opposite Parties
Represented By
Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing
Counsel
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the
Opposite Party No.4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing of all the Writ Petitions except W.P.(C) No.1690 of
2024::30.10.2025 :: Date of Hearing of W.P.(C) No.1690 of
2024::07.11.2025
:: ::
Date of Judgment of all the Writ Petitions :21.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. Since all these 27 numbers of writ petitions have arisen
out of one case vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 under Section 3-A of The
Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956, then all the writ petitions are taken up together
analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023
and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A.
& O.S.D. (LR), Koraput stating in their respective writ petitions that, much prior
to the passing of the above impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by
the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners), separate R.o.Rs in
respect of their purchased portions from the case land were prepared in their
names as per the orders passed in different mutation cases on the basis of their
respective purchased deeds (sale deeds), but still then, the above impugned
orders in the above OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 were passed by the C.A. &
O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners) without impleading them
(petitioners) as parties in the said OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 and without
giving any opportunity to them (petitioners) of hearing in the said case, though,
they (petitioners) were entitled under law to get opportunity of hearing in
OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput before passing
the impugned orders against them (petitioners) in respect of their recorded lands.
For which, they (petitioners) challenged the impugned orders passed in
OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 against them by filing these writ petitions praying
for quashing the said impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023
respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR),
Koraput.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the
writ petitions one after another separately and learned counsel for Punei Hontal
@ Girem (petitioner in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022) and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for the petitioners
contended that, the above impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of
2022 (those are under challenge) cannot be sustainable under law and the same
are liable to be quashed by interfering with the same through these writ petitions
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 filed by them
(petitioners) on the ground that, the impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of
2022 have been passed violating the principles of natural justice i.e. for non-
providing of any opportunity of being heard to them (petitioners) in spite of the
preparation of the R.o.Rs of the case land in their names as per the orders passed
by the Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases in their favour. The
petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the case land for value through
separate registered sale deeds and they are the owners and in possession over
their respective purchased land from Sabik Plot No.437. For which, the
impugned orders should not have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR),
Koraput in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 without impleading them (petitioners) as
parties and without giving them (petitioners) any opportunity of being heard.
To which, the learned counsel for Punei Hontal @ Girem and the learned
Standing Counsel for the State objected contending that, the impugned orders
have been passed as per law according to the provisions under Section 3(3) of
The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956. For which, the said impugned orders cannot be
challenged through these writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Because, the
same were challengeable before the statutory appellate forum under Section 3(3)
of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956. Therefore, these writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable under law.
5. It appears from the impugned orders (those are under challenge) that,
none of the petitioners has been impleaded as party in OSATIP Case No.1 of
2022 before the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput and they (petitioners) were also
not noticed in that OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR),
Koraput.
As such, the petitioners were not provided with any opportunity of being
heard in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 before the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.
6. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, much prior to the passing of
the impugned orders by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP Case
No.1 of 2022 in respect of the case lands vide CS Plot No.437 under Khata
No.38, separate R.o.Rs in respect of the purchased portions of the petitioners
from that Plot No.437 were prepared in their names i.e. in the name of
petitioners on the basis of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in
separate mutation cases.
7. The law relating to the providing of opportunity of hearing to persons
required under law in the like nature cases, has already been clarified in the ratio
of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ashim Ranjan Das (d) by LRs Vrs Shibu Bodhak and
Ors. reported in 2018 (2) CCC (SC) 2 & 2018 (2) CLR (SC) 178 that, order
passed without impleading the necessary party, in whose name R.o.R. stands,
and without giving opportunity of being heard to him is not sustainable under
law. The said matter is required to be remanded back for its fresh hearing
after giving opportunity of being heard to the person whose name R.o.R
stands.
(ii) In a case between Nilakamal Das and Others Vrs. Commissioner, Land
Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in J.B.R. Vol.
XV (1978) Part IV 55 (DB) that, parties concerned would not necessarily
mean those who had been contesting the particulars in the record-of-rights
before the Settlement authorities. Any person who would be affected by the
direction of the Commissioner would be entitled to a hearing.
(iii) In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath and others Vrs. Commissioner
of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and Others reported in 1989 (2)
OLR 135 that,
persons whose interests are likely to be affected are not made
parties in the revision, still then, the Revision was allowed. When the
petitioners who claim title to the disputed land having not been impleaded
and when they are praying for hearing of the revision afresh, then it would be
a fit case to re-open the matter to comply with the requirements of the
principles of natural justice. For which, the matter was remanded for fresh
disposal on merits.
8. Section 3-A(1) of the Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 provides that,
"necessary orders shall be passed under the said Section for ejectment
and restoration of possession in favour of the applicant only after giving
parties concerned an opportunity of being heard."
9. Here in these matters at hand, when it is the claim of the petitioners that,
they (petitioners) are in separate possession over the case land to the extent of
their respective purchased areas on the basis of separate sale deeds and separate
R.o.Rs in respect of their purchased portions from the case land have already
been prepared in their names on the basis of the separate orders passed by the
Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases and when Section 3-A(1) of The
Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 provides that, an order for ejectment, eviction and
restoration of possession can be passed only after giving the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard and when it has already been clarified in the ratio
of the above decisions that, any person, who would be affected by the direction
of the Court or Authority in any case or proceeding, the said person should be
given opportunity of being heard in order to comply the requirements of the
principles of natural justice and when, in these matters at hand, the petitioners
are stating that, they are seriously affected and prejudiced by the impugned
orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 on account of their non-
impleadment as parties in the said OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022, then at this
juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions and the provisions of law envisaged in Section 3-A(1) of the
Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 to these matters at hand, it is held that, the impugned
orders have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP
Case No.1 of 2022 in contravention to the principles of natural justice.
10. The law relating to the maintainability of a writ petition, despite
availability of an alternative remedy to challenge the same has already been
clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(I) In a case between Whirlpool Corporation vrs. Registrar of Trade
Marks : reported in (1998) 8 SCC-1 that,
Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be entertained
in the following cases:-
(a) Where principles of natural justice are breached.
(b) Where fundamental rights are sought to be enforced or breach thereof
is complained of
(c) Where the impugned order is passed by an authority without
justification.
(d) Where the Constitutionality of any provision is called in question.
(II) In a case between The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and
others vrs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited : reported in (2022) 16 SCC-
447 that,
Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be entertained
in the following cases :-
(i) An access of jurisdiction.
(ii) A breach of fundamental rights.
(iii) A violation of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) A challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.
(III) In a case between Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Ltd. (SOUTHCO) and another Vrs. Sri Seetaram
Rice Mill reported in 2012 (2) SCC 108 that,
if exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal ex facie appears to be an
exercise of jurisdiction in futility for any of the stated reasons, then it will
be permissible for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction.
(IV) In a case between Maharashtra Chess Association Vrs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 285 that,
existence of an alternative remedy does not alter the fundamentally
discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
(V) In a case between Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta Vrs. Management of
Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (UP) and others reported in AIR
1987 (SC) 2186 that,
an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a
writ petition, when an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the
High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.
(Para 12)
(VI) In a case between Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar Vrs.
State of Orissa, others and Deepak Kumar Panda Vrs. State of Orissa
and others and Pratap Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others
passed in W.P.(C) No.8774 & 9010 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.20178 of
2020 (Orissa),
writ Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can
interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority, when it acts in a
manner not recognized under law. (Para 30)
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held
above that, the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively
in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR),
Koraput in contravention to the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture,
it cannot be held that, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the
impugned orders are not maintainable under law.
For which, in other words, it is held that, these writ petitions filed by the
petitioners challenging the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of
2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput are maintainable under law.
12. When, it is held above that, the petitioners have suffered serious injustice
by the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. &
O.S.D. (LR), Koraput on account of their non-impleadment as parties in the said
OSATIP Case in respect of the case land, then at this juncture, the impugned
orders passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput cannot be sustainable under
law.
For which, the matter vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 is required to be
remitted back to the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput for deciding the same afresh
as per law after impleading the petitioners as parties in the said OSATIP Case
and to dispose of the same as per law providing opportunity of being heard to all
the parties thereof including the petitioners of these writ petitions.
So, for the reasons assigned above, there is merit in the writ petitions filed
by the petitioners. The same are to be allowed.
13. In result, all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed on
contest.
The impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively
passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput are
quashed.
The matter i.e. OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 is remitted back to the C.A. &
O.S.D. (LR), Koraput for deciding the same afresh as per law after impleading
the petitioners as O.Ps in the said case and to dispose of the same as per law as
expeditiously as possible providing opportunity of being heard to all the parties
thereof in full compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The parties in these writ petitions are directed to appear before the C.A. &
O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 for the purpose of
receiving the directions of the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput as to further
proceedings of the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022.
14. As such, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
21.11.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
