[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Ramakrishna Padhy vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.37340 of 2025
Sri Ramakrishna Padhy .... Petitioner
Ms.Sujata Jena, Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms.Sonali Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms.Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
17.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. The challenge is made to the Order of the Divisional Forest
Officer, Balliguda Forest Division, Balliguda, Kandhamal
(opposite party No.6) dated 23rd November, 2025, by which
the continuance of the quarry operation was withdrawn as the
area shown in the permit falls within the territorial boundary
of Budanai South PRF of Tumudibandha Range.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a quarry permit to
extract the minerals after observing and/or adhering all the
terms and conditions including the statutory provisions.
Subsequently, confusion was created as to whether the area
included in the permit falls within the forest area or not and
steps were taken in this regard. The petitioner was prevented
from continuing with the quarry operation and an application
was made before the competent authority which was kept in
suspended animation; that constrained the petitioner to
approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.31288 of 2025.
3. It was argued before this Bench in the said writ petition that
the petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder and a quarry
lease was also executed in his favour. Even the environmental
clearance was granted by the State Level Environmental
Impact Assessment Authority and the consent to operate was
also issued by the State Pollution Control Board.
4. Since the authorities were in dilemma as to whether the said
area comes within the forest range, the inspection was sought
to be done and ultimately the matter was pending before the
Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda. The said writ petition
was disposed of directing the said authority to consider the
grievance raised by the petitioner in relation to grant of
permit to operate the quarry in question and also the clearance
certificate from the forest officer with a clear stipulation that
all the authorities would act in tandem in taking a decision.
4.1. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order is passed
by the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda indicating that the
field enquiry report of the Forest Range Officer of
Tumudibandha Range and a joint field enquiry report was
also submitted which reveals that Plot No.158 (A), Khata
No.16 at village Dadanga in Tumudibandha Tahasil of
Kandhamal District is situated within the boundary of the
Budanai South PRF of Tumudibandha Range. It was further
highlighted that the said stone quarry Plot falls within the
limit of the said Reserve Forest, and, therefore, in view of the
embargo having created under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, the quarry cannot be permitted to continue.
5. According to learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner,
while granting the permit, the Forest Officer has granted the
permission as it does not come within the forest area, and, in
fact, multi period of the permit was enjoyed by the petitioner
except small period of 28 (twenty eight) months when the
petitioner has been prevented from operating the quarry.
According to her, the Plot in question is recorded in the
Record of Rights as 'Patita' land which can be reasonably
inferred that it does not come within the forest area.
6. Considering the tenet of the impugned order which vividly
reflects that the Plot in question comes within the boundaries
of the Reserve Forest, we are unable to countenance the
submission advanced by the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner. We are not unmindful of the
proposition of law that the entry in the Record of Rights may
be treated as correct by raising a presumption, but the same is
rebuttable in nature. It neither creates any vested and/or
absolute right into a person nor extinguishes such right, as
such, entry is intended for collection of land revenue and
making a person responsible therefor. The nature of land
recorded in the Record of Rights is susceptible to be
corrected, and, in the event, the enquiry reveals that it falls
within the boundaries of the forest range, there is no fetter on
the part of the authority (s) in making correction in the
Record of Rights.
7. Leave apart, we are not concerned with the erroneous entry in
the Record of Rights or a wrong entry therein, but if the land
comes within the boundaries of the forest area, in view of the
provision having created in the law/statute, there is no
incongruity on the part of the authority (s) in preventing such
quarry operation for rest of the period of lease. Anything
done on a mistake or mistaken entry in the Record of Rights
does not create any inchoate or indefeasible right into the
person nor in the authority (s) as the same may be corrected,
if found to be erroneous and incorrect in this regard.
8. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the order of the
Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda (opposite party No.6).
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the
costs.
10. It goes without saying that if any amount is required to be
deposited with the authority (s) for the period when the
petitioner has been prevented to operate the quarry under the
permit, it is obligatory on the part of the State to reimburse
the said amount. The authority is, therefore, directed that in
the event any statutory amount for the said period has been
paid, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 18-Feb-2026 17:49:17
