Orissa High Court
Janaki Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.529 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Janaki Mishra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. R.K. Satpathy,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. T. Kumar,
Learned Additional Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :10.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :10.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for
quashing the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional
Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite
Party No.2) in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22
of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
Page 1 of 5
3. The Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement),
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) has passed the impugned order in
dismissing the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 U/s. 22 of the
Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 of the petitioner during currency
of the settlement operation in respect of the case land in Muza-Sampur
assigning the reasons as follows:-
"Examined all copies of documents and reports attached
with the record. On perusal of the case record, it is
ascertained that, relevant documents are not enclosed with
the case record to justify her claim. Hence, the appeal Case
No.598 of 2022 is dismissed due to non-submission of
documents."
4. The above impugned order passed by the Additional Sub-
collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party
No.2) does not reveal, which particular document was required for the
decision of the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022, to which, the
appellant did not produce. For which, it is held that, the above impugned
order passed by the Opposite Party No.2 is not a reasoned order. In other
words, the same is an unreasoned/non-speaking order.
5. It is the settled propositions of law that, an unreasoned order like
the above impugned order cannot be sustainable under law.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions :-
(i) In a case between Atul Kuchhal vrs. Hem Ram and
another : reported in 2015(1) CCC-640(Rajasthan), that,
an order which does not reveal ground for coming to a
Page 2 of 5
conclusion, the same falls in the category of a non-
speaking order.
(ii) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
vrs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha and others : reported in
I(2012) Civ. L.T.-169 (S.C.) and Deputy General
Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vrs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava : reported in AIRONLINE 2021 S.C.-
38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking
order. The same cannot be sustainable under law. A non-
speaking order is held to be an order in violation of
principles of natural justice.
(iii) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack vrs.
Raghunath Tripathy and others : reported in 2017(2)
O.J.R.-889, when any judgment suffers from non-
application of mind, the said judgment cannot be
sustainable under law.
6. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is eagerly
interested for submitting all the required documents before the appellate
authority, if the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22
of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 shall be heard afresh
remitting back the matter to the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation
and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) after quashing the
impugned order.
7. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is
held that, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sub-
collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party
No.2) is an unreasoned order, then at this juncture, the same is not
sustainable under law, for which, there is justification under law for
Page 3 of 5
making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the
petitioner.
8. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same is to be allowed.
9. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional
Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite
Party No.2) in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22
of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 is quashed.
The matter vide Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 is
remitted back to the Settlement Officer at Jobra, Cuttack to decide the
same afresh as per law after providing opportunity to the petitioner for
filing of the documents in support of his case as well as giving
her(petitioner) opportunity of hearing of the Settlement Appeal Case
No.598 of 2022.
10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Settlement Officer at
Jobra, Cuttack in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 on dated
17.11.2025
and to the file certified copy of this judgment for the purpose
of receiving the direction of the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack as to
the further proceedings of the Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 on the basis
of the observations made in this judgment.
11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
12. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment to
the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack immediately.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 10th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
