Orissa High Court
Sarangadhara Tripathy vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 15 October, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.8637 OF 2014
Sarangadhara Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. Sidharth P. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 15.10.2025
06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The matter was once disposed of by this Court vide common
judgment dated 2nd January, 2023 along with a batch of writ
petitions. The State Government being aggrieved, preferred
SLP(C) No.2627 of 2024 along with a batch of SLP(C)s before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP(C)s were disposed of by a
common order dated 17th December, 2024 with a direction as
under:
" Delay condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed
and set aside for the simple reason that instead of deciding
each case individually, on its given fact, the High Court
proceeded to club and decide all the matters by presuming the
facts to be common/identical and framing a common question
of law.
As such on this short ground alone, the judgment
requires interference, we are of the considered view that each
case had to be considered on its own merits.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17
Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the
provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement
Act, 1958 were exercised prior to the finalisation of the
Record of Rights or at a subsequent stage was not considered
by the High Court. Also as to whether the aggrieved parties
had exhausted their remedies as provided under Section 12A
and/or Section 158 of the said Act has also not considered by
the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the assumption
that all the petitioners before the Court had leases in their
favour, in relation to which no Record of Rights was required
to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the said Act.
As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting
on the merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us,
we remand the matter to the High Court for consideration
afresh.
We hope and expect that each case would be considered
and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and
contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated
before the High Court.
The parties are directed to appear before the High
Court on 15.1.2025. The parties undertake to fully co-operate
in the proceedings before the High Court.
The Special leave petitions are disposed of as above.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
3. In view of such direction, the writ petition is taken up for
consideration on merit.
4. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the undated
order under Annexure-6 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Camp Court, Rental Conoly, Bhubaneswar in Objection case
No.377 of 2012.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 21 of the Odisha
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17
Survey Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the Act') to prepare the
rent role and record the land in question in his name. But, without
considering the grounds taken in the objection and assigning any
reason, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Rental
Colony, Bhubaneswar held that the land in question has already
been recorded in Government Khata and hence dropped the
objection case. It is further submitted that the Petitioner appeared
before the Assistant Settlement Officer and claimed to prepare the
rent roll and record of right in his name by filing a written
objection. But none of the objection raised by him was taken into
consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court,
Rental Conoly, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating the matter. The
impugned order under Annexure-6 is an outcome of total non-
application of mind which is apparent therefrom. Hence, finding no
other alternative, this writ petition has been filed.
6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government submitted that
the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 22 of the Act to
file an Appeal before the Settlement Officer against the order
impugned herein. It is stated at the bar that final ROR under
Section 12-B of the Act in respect of Sampur mouza, where the
land in question situates has not yet been published. It is further
submitted that since the Petitioner has not filed any Appeal under
Section 22 of the Act, no counter affidavit is required to be filed in
this case.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is ascertained
that the Petitioner has not yet availed the efficacious statutory
remedy under Section 22 of the Act against the impugned order
under Annexure-6. Further, it is submitted at the Bar that final
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17
Record of Right under Section 12-B of the Act has not yet been
published in respect of Sampur mouza, where the land in question
situates.
8. Hence, this Court, without delving into the merits of the case
of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that
in the event, the Petitioner files an Appeal under Section 22 of the
Act before the Settlement Officer, Cuttack and Puri Major
Settlement, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.5 within a period of two
weeks hence, the same shall be considered on its own merit without
adhering to the technicality of limitation and otherwise.
8. Needless to mention that the concerned parties including the
Petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the
Settlement Officer in the Appeal, if any filed, within the time
stipulated as above and a reasoned order be passed by the
Settlement Officer as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of two months from the date of filing of the Appeal.
9. Interim order dated 16th May, 2014 passed in Misc. Case
No.7848 of 2014 stands vacated.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Rojalin Judge
