Orissa High Court
Rajanikanta Pattanaik vs State Of Odisha And Others ... on 3 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19646 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Rajanikanta Pattanaik ............... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha and others ........................ Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohanta, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.S.Nayak, A.S.C.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 03.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 03.09.2025
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 Petitioner
praying for quashing the final order dated 10.12.2024
(Annexure-6) passed in O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 by the
Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II,
Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack on the
ground of non-taking the judgment and decree passed on dated
04.03.2006 and 20.03.2006 respectively in respect of the case
land by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubaneswar in to
account for passing the said impugned order vide Annexure-6.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned ASC for the State (Opposite Parties).
3. It appears from the impugned order dated 10.12.2024
(Annexure-6) that, during the course of hearing of the revision
vide O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.
& S. Act, 1958 before the Additional Commissioner, Additional
Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of
Revenue, Cuttack, the Petitioner had filed the judgment and
decree of the Civil Court passed in T.S. No.311 of 1988 in his
favour in respect of the case land for recording the same in his
name, but, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision
Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack has not taken the said judgment and decree dated
04.03.2006 and 20.03.2006 respectively passed in T.S. No.311 of
1988 into account for passing such impugned order vide
Annexure-6.
4. As per law, it is the duty of the Revenue Authorities to pass
order for recording of the case land on the basis of the judgment
and decree passed in the Civil Court. Because, the Settlement
Authorities including the Commissioner under Section 15(b) of
the O.S. & S. Act, 1958 are bound to respect the decision of the
Civil Court.
5. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In cases between Guru Charan Pattnaik and
others Vrs. Joint Commissioner, Settlement
and consolidation Cuttack reported in 2012 (I)
OLR 463 that,
Settlement Authorities are bound to respect
the decision of the Civil Court.
(ii) In cases between Dr.Gati Krisna Misra Vrs.
State of Orissa and others reported in 2002 (1)
OLR 69 & Smt. Manjubala Pattanayak Vrs.
State of Orissa and others reported in 2001 (1)
OLR 530 that,
the Settlement Authorities are to act according
to the decision of the Civil Court, even though, the
decree of the Civil Court is passed ex-parte unless
and until that decree is set aside. Because, there is
no difference between the judgment passed on
contest or ex-parte.
(iii) In cases between Kunjabihari Pradhan Vrs.
Jayanti Pradhan reported in 96 (2003) CLT 151
that,
a judgment delivered by a Court between the
Parties on relevant issue is binding on the Parties
so long as that judgment and decree holds the
filed. In that context, it is immaterial, whether that
judgment was passed on contest or ex-parte.
6. When, in this matter at hand, the Additional Commissioner,
Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member,
Board of Revenue, Cuttack has passed the impugned order vide
Annexure-6 against the Petitioner without taking the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court in T.S. No.311 of 1988 into
account, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned
order vide Annexue-6 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member,
Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019
cannot be sustainable under law.
7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioner. The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed.
9. The impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexue-6) passed
in O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 by the Additional Commissioner,
Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member,
Board of Revenue, Cuttack is quashed.
10. The matter vide O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 is remitted
back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court
No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack
to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of
being heard to the Parties and taking into account the judgment
and decree of the Civil Court passed in T.S. No.311 of 1988 in
favour of the Petitioner in respect of the case land within a period
of two months from the date of appearance of the Parties before
the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II,
Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in
O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019.
11. The Parties are directed to appear before the Additional
Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar
under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack on dated 15.09.2025
for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Additional
Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar
under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack as to the further
proceedings of the said O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019.
12. As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
03.09.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
