Orissa High Court
Rokkam Bharatiamma vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11931 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Rokkam Bharatiamma .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. S. S. Rao,
Sr. Advocate.
assisted by
B.K. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :27.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing (setting aside) the order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed
in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by the Additional District
Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
Page 1 of 6
3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, two revision cases vide OLR
(Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case
No.01 of 2022 arising out of OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were
filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
The OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 was filed by the
petitioner in this writ petition challenging the final order dated
06.08.2019
passed in OLR Appeal No.2 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector,
Paralakhemundi arising out of the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in OLR
(Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Kashinagar (O.P. No.6).
The husband of the petitioner i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao had filed OLR
(Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 before the Additional District
Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) challenging the order dated 19.03.2021
passed in OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175/1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum-
Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6).
Accordingly, two revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case
No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out
of same case vide OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were pending
before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
When, during the pendency of the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case
No.01 of 2022, the petitioner thereof i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao expired on
dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner along with her sons were substituted in
the said OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 in place of the
deceased husband of the petitioner as per order dated 12.10.2022.
The Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) dropped
to the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 filed by the widow
petitioner (R. Bharatiamma) as per the impugned order dated 11.01.2023
(Annexure-7) assigning the reasons that,
"when the petitioner of the revision i.e. R. Bharatiamma being the
widow of R. Kamalakar Rao along with her two sons have
already substituted in place of the deceased petitioner in Revision
Case No.1 of 2022 i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao, then this Revision Case
No.1 of 2019 filed by the R. Bharatiamma as divorcee of R.
Kamalakar Rao is dropped."
4. The above cryptic impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7)
passed by the Additional District Magistrate (O.P. No.3) purely on a
technical ground i.e. on the ground of substitution of the petitioner in
another OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of OLR
(Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 in place of the deceased petitioner of the
said OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 without expressing
anything about the legality and propriety of the impugned order (which
was under challenge in that OLR Ceiling Revision Case No.1 of 2019)
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 Surendra Kumar Jain Vs.
Santobai & Another reported in (2025) INSC (SC)
230 at Para No.12 that, an order must not be passed
in a cryptic manner without recording any reason and
must reflect the application of mind.
(ii). In a case between C. Saravana Kumar Vs. The
Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat
Raj, Saidapet, Chennai & Another decided in WP(C)
No.25723 of 2008 & M.P. No.2 of 2008 (Mad.) at
Para No.5 that, the act of passing a cryptic order
itself amounts to violation of Principles of Natural
Justice.
(iii). In a case between State of Uttarakhand and
another Vrs. Ravi Kumar (deceased) through legal
representatives and others reported in (2023) 18 SCC
281 (at Paras 69 & 70) that, casual
findings/observations made by the Revenue Authority
or the Civil Court shall not be accepted at their face
value. For which, the matter was remanded back for
its fresh disposal.
5. It is very fundamental in law that, the Revisional Court shall decide
the revision expressing the opinion about the legality and propriety of the
impugned order, but should not dismiss or drop the revision merely on a
technical ground.
6. When, the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) has
dropped the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner purely on a technical ground i.e. on the ground of her
substitution in OLR Revision Case No.1 of 2022 through the impugned
order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) without deciding both the revision
cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling)
Revision Case No.01 of 2022 analogously, although both the revision
cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling)
Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of same case vide OLR
(Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were pending before him, then at this
juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decisions, it is held that, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023
(Annexure-7) passed in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by
the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) is not inconformity
with law.
For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same is to be allowed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in
OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 by the Additional District
Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) is quashed (set aside).
The matter vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 is
remitted back (remanded back) to the Additional District Magistrate,
Gajapati (O.P. No.3) to decide the same afresh as per law analogously
with OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 after giving
opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof complying the principles
of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Additional
District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) in OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case
No.01 of 2019.
The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the
Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) in OLR (Ceiling)
Revision Case No.01 of 2019 on 14.11.2025 for the purpose of receiving
the directions of the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3)
as to further proceedings of the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of
2019.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
31.10.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
