Orissa High Court
Daitari Swain And Others vs State Of Odisha & Others ........... ... on 29 October, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18958 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Daitari Swain and others ............. Petitioners
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr.G.N.Rout, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.G.Mohanty, S.C.
Mr.D.K.Pani, Advocate
(for the O.P. Nos.5 to 8)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 29.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 29.10.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners
praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025
(Annexure-7) passed in Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 by
the Land Reforms Commissioner-cum-Commissioner
Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2).
2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the Petitioners are the
owners of non-consolidable Plot No.451 under Khata No.21,
Ac.0.23 dec. in Mouza Nalakani under Erasama Tahasil and the
R.o.R. of the same has been published in their names by the
Consolidation Authorities.
The O.P. Nos.5 to 8 are the owners of Plot No.450 Ac.0.27
dec. in Mouza Nalakani under Erasama Tahasil, which is
adjacent to Plot No.451. They (Petitioners) are in possession over
their Ac.0.23 dec. of Plot No.451 according to the area indicated
in the R.o.R, but, in the map, two decimals area of their Plot
No.451 has been reduced. The said reduced area of their Plot
No.451 in the map has been erroneously mixed with the map
area of Plot No.450 of the O.P. Nos.5 to 8.
For which, the Petitioners filed revision vide Consolidation
Revision No.113 of 2023 under Section 37 (1) of the OCH and PFL
Act, 1972 against the O.Ps praying for correction of the map area
of their Plot No.451, because, they (Petitioners) are in possession
over the recorded area i.e. Ac.0.23 dec. of their Plot No.451, but,
only in the map, two decimals area thereof has been reduced and
the same has been mixed with the map area of Plot No.450.
3. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the
learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 to 8 and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that, during the pendency of
Revision No.113 of 2023, the O.P. No.2 had called for reports
from the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur
for clarification i.e. whether the map area of Plot No.451 of the
Petitioners has been reduced and the said reduced area in the
map has been mixed in the map area of Plot No.450 or not?
Accordingly, both i.e. the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-
Collector, Jagatsinghpur had submitted their reports about the
same stating that, in fact, the map area of Plot No.451 has been
reduced and the said reduced area has been mixed in the map
area of Plot No.450, but, the O.P. No.2 passed the impugned
order vide Annexure-7 in dismissing the Consolidation Revision
No.113 of 2023 of the Petitioners without taking the reports of
the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur into
account, though, the same were available in the record before
passing the impugned order (Annexure-7).
So, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, had
the report of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector,
Jagatsinghpur been taken into account by the O.P. No.2, the
revision of the Petitioners would not have been dismissed by the
O.P. No.2.
To which, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 to 8
objected contending that, they (O.P. Nos.5 to 8) are not at all
aware about any report of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-
Collector, Jagatsinghpur, because, the copy of the said reports
were not supplied to them (O.P. Nos.5 to 8). If the said reports
would have been supplied to them, then, they could have gotten
opportunities to object the same.
5. Under the above circumstances, perusal of the reports of the
Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur was
necessary for the just decision of the revision by the O.P. No.2
prior to passing the impugned order on dated 20.02.2025
(Annexure-7), but, the O.P. No.2 has not taken the said reports
into consideration. For which, the impugned order dated
20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Consolidation Revision
No.113 of 2023 by the O.P. No.2 cannot be sustainable under
law.
6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order dated 20.02.2025
(Annexure-7) passed by the O.P. No.2 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 in part.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed
in part.
9. The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed
in Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 by the Land Reforms
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Consolidation and Settlement,
Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) is quashed.
10. The matter vide Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 is
remitted back to the O.P. No.2 for deciding the same afresh as per
law after supplying the copy of the reports of the Tahasildar,
Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur to the Parties and
giving opportunity of being heard to them and to dispose of the
Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 finally as per law even
during the pendency of the suit for injunction simpliciter in
respect of the case land in the Civil Court and referring the
reports of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector,
Jagatsinghpur as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from the date of appearance of the Parties.
11. The Parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before
the O.P. No.2 in Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 on dated
11.11.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment for the
purpose of receiving the directions of the O.P. No.2 as to the
further proceedings of the said Consolidation Revision No.113 of
2023 on the basis of the directions given in this judgment.
12. As such, this writ petition filed by the Petitioners is disposed
of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
29.10.2025// Binayak Sahoo, Jr.Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
