Banaku Mahali vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8845 Ori

Orissa High Court

Banaku Mahali vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 6 October, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               W.P.(C) No. 28398 of 2025

Banaku Mahali                       .....               Petitioner
                                                   Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                  -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.               .....            Opposite Parties
                                                     Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

06.10.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. Even though the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to hold that Sec. 22 of the OLR Act is not applicable to gharabari land, but it is fairly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that sale deed under Annexure-3 series produced by him was not accepted, taking recourse to the provisions contained under Sec. 22 of the OLR Act.

3.1. It is further contended that the issue involved is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27920 of 2023 and batch reported in 2024 (II) OLR 588. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to issue necessary permission taking into account the decision as cited (supra).

4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to move an appropriate application before opp. Party No. 2 for the purpose of getting the required permission for transfer of the land in question.

5.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before Opp. Party No. 2, the same be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27920 of 2023 & batch.

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Vacation Judge

Jyoti

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA