Orissa High Court
Bidyulata Samantray And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19669 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Bidyulata Samantray and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Ms. Deepali Mahapatra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty,
Learned Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :25.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
1950 praying for quashing of the impugned order dated
03.02.2020(Annexure-8) passed by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Revenue
Misc. Case No.161 of 2016.
Page 1 of 6
2. The factual backgrounds of the writ petition, which
prompted to the petitioners for filing of the same is that,
rent of the case land was fixed by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 as per
order dated 16.07.2019 and on the basis of the fixation of
rent of the case land by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in
Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016, the RoR of the case
was prepared in the names of the petitioners and the
petitioners were paying rent for the same and the petitioners
paid rent in respect of the case land up-to the year 2019
and obtained valid rent receipts thereof.
Surprisingly, the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) as per order dated
03.02.2020
recalled the previous order for fixation of rent
passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on dated
20.07.2019 in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 and
directed to record the case land in its previous status as it
was prior to the order of settlement passed on dated
16.07.2019 in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 in favour
of the petitioners without issuing any notice to the
petitioners and without giving any opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners, though RoR of the case land by the
time of the impugned order was in the names of the
petitioners on the basis of the order passed by the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on dated 16.07.2019 in Revenue
Misc. Case No.161 of 2016.
For which, the petitioners filed this writ petition
praying for quashing the impugned order dated 03.02.2020
passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 by the
Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5)
on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural
justice.
3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. It is well evident from the impugned order dated
03.02.2020(Annexure-8) passed by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Revenue
Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 that, no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioners for correction of the RoR of the
case land from their names.
5. It is the settled propositions of law that, no order for
correction of the RoR of any land like the case land from the
name of the recorded person by any Court or authority
can be passed without issuing notice to the said person or
persons in whose name or names RoR stand and without
giving opportunity of being heard to the said recorded
tenants/persons thereof. Because, the persons, whose
interest are likely to be affected through any order, the said
persons should be given opportunity of being heard. If any
order is passed for correction of RoR from the names of the
recorded tenants/persons without giving any opportunity to
them for correction of RoR from their names, the said order
shall be deemed as an order without compliance of the
principles of natural justice.
6. When the impugned order dated
03.02.2020(Annexure-8) in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of
2016 has been passed by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) without complying the
principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, the said
impugned order vide Annexure-8 passed by the Opposite
Party No.5 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the
petitioners.
7. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by
the petitioners. The same is to be allowed.
8. In the result, the writ petition filed by the
petitioners is allowed.
The impugned order dated 03.02.2020 vide
Annexure-8 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of
2016 by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) is quashed and the
matter vide Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 is
remitted back to the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) for deciding the same
afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners along with others, if any, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of appearance of the parties before
the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party
No.5) in Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016.
The parties to this writ petition are directed to appear
before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite
Party No.5) on dated 10.12.2025 for the purpose of receiving
the directions of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
(Opposite Party No.5) as to the further proceedings of
Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016 and to file the certified
copy of this judgment.
9. As such, with the aforesaid observations, this writ
petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 25th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
