[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sabita Moharana vs Additional Commissioner on 23 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8865 of 2026
Sabita Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Rout, Advocate
-versus-
Additional Commissioner,
Consolidation and Settlement, .... Opposite Parties
Kendrapara and others
Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 23.04.2026
01. 1. Challenging the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Revision
Case No.247 of 2012 by the Additional Commissioner
(Consolidation and Settlement), Kendrapara (opposite party
No.1), the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition invoking
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, for grant of following relief(s):
"It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court shall be pleased
to admit the writ petition, issue notices to the 0pp. Parties and
upon hearing the Parties be further pleased to issue writ/writs,
direction/directions, order/orders, more particularly issue.
(i) Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting
aside the order date 09.09.2025 passed in R.C. Case No.
247 of 2012 under Armexure-10.
(ii) And pass any other appropriate order/ orders as deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And for the act of kindness petitioner shall as in duty bound
ever pray."
2. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the
petitioner had filed R.C. Case No.247 of 2012 in earlier point of
time than R.C. Case No.44 of 2025 on the self-same cause of
action. He explained that since the earlier case could not be
traced out, on the latter point of time on the self-same cause of
action, the petitioner filed another revision petition being R.C.
Case No.44 of 2025 before the Court of the Addl.
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Kendrapara. He
submitted that instead of allowing withdrawal of R.C. Case
No.247 of 2012, the Revisional Authority proceeded to pass
independent order.
3. Heard Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Rout, learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
4. Perused the records. Considered the averments of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. Order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Addl. Commissioner
(Consolidaton and Settlement), Kendrapara, runs thus:
"The Case record is taken up today. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner is present. The prayer made by the petitioner in the
Instant Revision is identical to the Revision disposed vide R.C
No.44/2025. Since the nature and the claim are same in both
the Revision, the petitioner having claim for the suit plot by
virtue of the same deed having same schedule of land
amounting to duplication of effort and time by this Court.
Accordingly, the present Revision is disposed of with similar to
the Order passed on dt.01.07.2025 by the Addl. Commissioner
(S & C), Kendrapara vide R.C No.44/2025.
Accordingly, the Revision Case is disposed of.
Order pronounced today in the open Court i.e. on 09 th
September, 2025."
6. The concluding paragraphs of the Judgment dated 01.07.2025
passed by Addl. Commissioner (Consolidaton and Settlement),
Kendrapara in R.C. Case No.44/2025 runs as follows:
"The suit land has been purchased several times and the RoR
being mutated accordingly. The petitioner is one of the
purchaser who could not mutated the RoR. Since no land is
available in the Plot no.1316 under Hal Khata no.140 under
Mouza: Belatal and the Hal RoR is accordingly mutated the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for
remedies if any cause of action still arises.
Accordingly, the case is disposed of."
7. This Court does not find any anomaly or conflicting opinion
exressed in both the order as well as the judgment of the Addl.
Commissioner (Consolidaton and Settlement), Kendrapara.
While disposing of R.C. No.247 of 2012, the Additional
Commissioner concluded that the revision is disposed of in
terms of the Order passed in R.C No.44/2025 on 01.07.2025 by
the Addl. Commissioner (S & C), Kendrapara.
8. As no serious prejudice has been demonstrated by the
petitioner, it is not felt proper on the part of this Court exercise
the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Inda. This Court, thus, finds no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 09.09.2025 passed in R.C. Case No.247 of 2012 vis-a-vis
the Judgment passed in R.C. Case No.44 of 2025 on 01.07.2025
by the Revisional Authority.
9. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 23-Apr-2026 16:47:23
