[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tarakanta Samal & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Tarakanta Samal & another ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Sr. Advocate
Along with Mr. Manas Ranjan Baug,
Advocate
For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
& MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 20.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners submits that the prayer made in this writ petition is
two-fold. Firstly, the Petitioners assail the order dated 5th
January, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by the Member, Board of
Revenue in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017. Secondly, the
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
Petitioners pray for a direction to quash the OEA Revision
Case No.07 of 2017 holding it to be not maintainable. It is
submitted that the Petitioners will file appropriate application
assailing the maintainability of OEA Revision Case No.07 of
2017 before the Member, Board of Revenue. Hence, he does
not want to press the prayer challenging the maintainability of
the OEA Revision Case for the time being.
3. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners draws attention to the impugned order dated 5th
January, 2023 (Annexure-2) and submits that an order of
status quo has been passed without any application filed by
any of the parties. Further, the Petitioners were not provided
with any opportunity of hearing to defend their case.
3.1. It is his submission that in the impugned order under
Annexure-2 the Member, Board of Revenue observed that the
learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Collector, Khordha
(the Petitioner therein) prayed for passing an order of status
quo to prevent further transaction of the land involved in
OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017. Neither any application
to that effect was filed nor were the Petitioners provided with
an opportunity of hearing. A cryptic order was passed by the
Member, Board of Revenue to maintain status quo in respect
of the land in question and it was also directed that no further
sale, purchase, transactions and correction of RoRs are to be
made till disposal of the revision. It is his submission that the
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
impugned order is not supported by any reason. The same is
also violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prays
for setting aside the impugned order.
3.2. It is further submitted that one of the Opposite Parties,
namely, M/s. Z Engineers and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(Opposite Party No. 4 therein) in OEA Revision Case No.07
of 2017 challenging the self-same order had filed W.P.(C)
No.22392 of 2023, which was disposed of vide judgment
dated 24th September, 2024. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is culled out hereunder.
"10. Insofar as this Petitioner-Company is concerned;
they having purchased the property measuring Ac.1.160
decimals have taken all the required approval from the
concerned Authorities and put up multi-storied building.
In the meantime, the Petitioner-Company has sold
several flats to different persons by executing registered
sale deeds on receipt of consideration and those persons
are in occupation of their respective purchased flats as
the owners.
For the foregoing discussion and in the facts and
circumstances, further keeping in view of section 38-B of
the OEA Act, we are of the view that the learned
Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass
any such interim order affecting the rights over the
property before finally deciding the Revision, which in
the present case has been filed after fifty-five years since
that vesting order, which has been filed before the
Authorities on earlier occasions.
Therefore, the impugned order to maintain status
quo in respect of the land and restraint as to further sale
and purchase and correction of the Record of Right even
without assigning any reason whatsoever in respect of
the land measuring Ac.1.160 decimals, which this
Petitioner-Company has purchased and put up
construction and has sold several portions to third
parties, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Member,
Board of Revenue, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) in
O.E.A. Revision Case No.7 of 2017 as at Annexure-3 is
hereby quashed to the extent as indicated above."
3.3. But the said order was confined to the Petitioner therein
namely, M/s. Z Engineers and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thus,
the Petitioners, who are the Opposite Party Nos. 22 and 5
respectively, in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017, are
constrained to file this writ petition assailing the self-same
order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue.
4. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that the Vendor of the Petitioners by playing fraud,
managed to record the land in question in her name and
alienated the same to different persons including the present
Petitioners. Thus, in order to protect the valuable property of
the State Government, OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017
has been initiated on the file of Member, Board of Revenue
under Section 38-B of the Odisha Estate Abolition Act, 1951.
In order to protect the property from further encumbrance
during pendency of the lis, the Member, Board of Revenue
passed the impugned order dated 5th January, 2023
(Annexure-2). It is further submitted that there is no illegality
in the said order, though no reason has been assigned
directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the
land in question.
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
4.1. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel though
admitted that the self-same order was challenged by one of
the Opposite Parties in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017,
but, submits that the said case is not similar to the case of the
Petitioners in view of the prayer made therein. In the present
writ petition, though the Petitioners have made two-fold
prayer challenging the order dated 5th January, 2023 under
Annexure-2 as well as to quash the revision proceeding as not
maintainable, but at the threshold, he preferred not to press
the prayer with regard to maintainability of the revision
petition submitting that he would raise the objection before
the Member, Board of Revenue in that regard. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned order needs no interference.
5. Taking note of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order
under Annexure-2, this Court finds that in the said order the
Member, Board of Revenue directed the parties to the said
revision case to maintain status quo in respect of the land in
question during pendency of the OEA Revision Case. In
course of argument, Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel also submits that the order passed in W.P.(C)
No.22392 of 2023 has attained finality as it was never
challenged. Though lengthy arguments were made by Mr.
Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel on merit of the
revision petition, i.e., OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017, but
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
the dispute in the present writ petition being confined to the
sustainability of the order dated 5th January, 2023, we are not
delving into the merit of the same as it may prejudicial to the
case of either of the parties to the OEA Revision Case. On
perusal of order dated 5th January, 2023, this Court finds that
on the prayer of learned Additional Standing Counsel to
maintain status quo in respect of the property in question, the
impugned order has been passed instantaneously. Though, the
counter affidavit has been filed by the State-Opposite Party
No.45, but, it is conspicuously silent about filing any
application for interim order including an order of status quo.
6. It is also apparent from the impugned order that
entertaining the prayer made by learned Additional Standing
Counsel to maintain status quo over the land in question, the
Member, Board of Revenue without affording any
opportunity of hearing to any of the Opposite Parties
including the present Petitioners, passed the impugned order
of status quo.
7. It is not disputed that the land in question stands
recorded in the name of the vendor of the Petitioners, namely,
Tilottama Samal. Thus, the Petitioners being rightful title
holders in respect of the land in question having purchased
the same by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed, an opportunity
of hearing should have been given to them. Without
providing an opportunity to defend the prayer made by
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
learned Additional Standing Counsel, the Member, Board of
Revenue passed the impugned order, thereby restrained the
Petitioners from exercising their right to property
independently.
8. No reason has been assigned by the Member Board of
Revenue to pass such an order. In that view of the matter, the
impugned order dated 5th January, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed
by the Member, Board of Revenue in OEA Revision Case
No.07 of 2017 is not only cryptic and non-speaking but also
violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is
not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
9. The Member, Board of Revenue shall communicate
this order to the authority, to whom the order dated 5th
January, 2023 has been communicated.
10. It is however, made clear that if the Petitioner in the
OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017, if so advised, may file a
properly constituted application for any interim order and in
that event, the Member, Board of Revenue providing an
opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Parties in the revision
petition, passed necessary orders in accordance with law.
11. With the observation and direction, as above, the writ
petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. But, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
12. It is, however, made clear that the Petitioners are at
liberty to raise the objection with regard to maintainability of
the revision case i.e., OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017
initiated under Section 38-B of the Odisha Estate Abolition
Act, 1951, if so advised and in that event, the same shall be
adjudicated in accordance with law providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 20th February, 2026/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 24-Feb-2026 11:01:33
W.P.(C) No. 18075 OF 2025
