Orissa High Court
Kalakar Pradhan & Another vs The Commissioner on 26 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.27213 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Kalakar Pradhan & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
The Commissioner, C & S, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack & Another
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
praying for directing the Tahasildar, Aul (Opp. Party No.2) to
carry out (implementation of) the order dated 19.12.2016
passed in R.P. No.311 of 2015 by the Commissioner,
Consolidation & Settlement, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack (Opp. Party No.1). Because, till yet, in spite of
direction by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement,
Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.1) as per
order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Revision Petition No.311 of
2015 to the Tahasildar, Aul (Opp. Party No.2) to conduct field
enquiry in presence of the petitioners and affected land
owners and effect correction of impugned area and map
accordingly and to implement that order within two months,
the Tahasildar has not implemented the said order.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opp. Parties.
3. The law relating to the scope of interference of the High
Court in the matter of non-implementation of the directions of
the superior officers of the Government to their sub-ordinate
officers has already been clarified in the ratio of the following
decision of the Apex Court.
In a case between Jayamma & Others Vrs. Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan, Dist., Hassan & Others (Para
No.10) reported in III (2013) CLT 94 (SC) that,
"if a subordinate authority in the Government does not act in
terms of the directions or instructions issued by the superior
authority, it is not for the High Court to compel that
subordinate authority to comply with the instruction or
directions issued by the superior authority of the Government.
Because, High Court is not the executing forum of instructions
or directions issued by the superior officers of the
Government. It is the duty of the superior officers of the
Government (who had directed the sub-ordinate officer) to see
that, their orders are properly implemented, but not the High
Court to implement their directions or orders."
4. So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in
the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court to this
matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ
petition finally, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach
the Opp. Party No.1 filing an application annexing the
certified copy of this Judgment praying for implementation
of the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Opp. Party
No.1 in R.P. No.311 of 2015 and if after filing of such
application before the Opp. Party No.1, there is no response
by the Opp. Party No.1 to the same, then, the petitioners
can approach the High Court seeking appropriate relief for
the same.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid directions and
observations, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 26 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
