Orissa High Court
Naikani Thakurani And Others vs Director Of Consolidation on 18 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3786 of 2003
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
Naikani Thakurani and others ... Petitioners
-VERSUS-
Director of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack
and others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohant, Standing
Counsel (for the State)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 / date of judgment : 18.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. Heard only from the learned counsel for the petitioner(deity)
and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, as
none appeared from the side of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 for
participating in the hearing this writ petition.
2. This writ petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner(deity)
praying for quashing the final order dated 26.11.2002(Annexure-1)
passed in R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 by the Director of
Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) under Section
37(2) of the OCH & PFL Act 1972.
3. It is the case of the petitioner(deity) that, the petitioner(deity)
had purchased Ac.0.15 decimals out of Ac.0.30 decimals land of Hal
Plot No.390 under Hal Khata No.262 from one of the recorded
tenant thereof, namely Sridhar Barik, Son of Radhu Barik through
RSD No.2551 dated 09.07.1982 (Annexure-3) and filed revision
under Section 37(2) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 vide R.P. Case
No.3583 of 2002 before the Opposite Party No.1(Director of
Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack) praying for recording the above
purchased land of the petitioner(deity) in the name of the
deity(petitioner).
4. After hearing from both the sides, the Director of
Consolidation, Orissa Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) dismissed the
revision vide R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 of the petitioner(deity)on
dated 26.11.2002(Annexure-1) assigning the reasons that,
"originally, the case land was recorded in the name of Radhu
Barik son of Late Bhagi Barik under Sabik Khata No.180 as
"Desahata Bhandari Jagiri" land. Giridhari Barik and Sridhar
Barik are the two sons and successor of Radhu Barik. As per law
"Desahata Bhandari Jagiri" land are non-transferable land. When
the case land being the "Desahata Bhandari Jagiri" land is non-
transferable land, for which, the sale deed No.2551 dated
09.07.1982 executed by Sridhar Barik in favour of the
petitioner(deity) in respect of the case land is void. Because, the case
land being "Desahata Bhandari Jagiri" land is non-transferable
land. For which, the Opposite Party No.1 refused to record the case
land in the name of the petitioner(deity) and dismissed the revision
vide R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 on dated 26.11.2002(Annexur-1) of
the petitioner(deity)."
To which, the petitioner(deity) challenged, by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing of the said impugned order dated
26.11.2002(Annexure-1) passed in R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 by
the Director of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1).
5. Undisputedly, the petitioner (deity) is the purchaser of Ac.0.15
decimals land out of Ac.0.30 decimals land of Hal Plot No.390
under Hal Khata No.262.
6. It is well evident from the Hal RoR vide Khata No.262
(Annexure-2) that, the said Hal Khata No.262 containing Hal Plot
Nos.390 and 396 was prepared under sthitiban status in the name of
Giridhari Barik and Sridhar Barik sons of Rudra Bark with specific
indications therein that, the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur has settled the
said lands of Khata No.262 in the name of Giridhari Barik and
Sridhar Barik sons of Rudra Barik in OEA Case No.3696 of 1984 as
their STHITIBAN LAND.
7. When, it appears from the Hal RoR vide Khata No.262 that,
the case Plot No.390 was the sthitiban as well as transferable land of
Giridhari Barik and Sridhar Barik sons of Radhu Barik as per the
settlement made in OEA Case No.3696 of 1984 by the Tahasildar,
Jagatsinghur, then at this juncture, the observations made by the
Director of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) in
the impugned order dated 26.11.2002(Annexure-1) that, the status of
the case land is "Desahata Bhandari Jagiri" and non-transferable
land of Radhu Barik cannot be sustainable under law.
For which, the impugned order dated 26.11.2002(Annexure-1)
passed in R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 by the Director of
Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) is liable to be
quashed.
8. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioner(deity). The same must succeed.
9. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner(deity) is
allowed.
The impugned order dated 26.11.2002(Annexure-1) passed in
R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 by the Director of Consolidation, Orissa,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) is quashed.
10. The matter vide R.P. Case No.3583 of 2002 is remitted back
to the Director of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party
No.1) to decide the same afresh as per law on the basis of the
observations made in this judgment after issuing notice to the parties
thereof and giving opportunity of being heard to them as
expeditiously as possible.
11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner(deity) is
disposed of finally.
(A.C. BEHERA)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 18th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
