Priyambada Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 269 Ori

Orissa High Court

Priyambada Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       W.P.(C). No. 32396 of 2025

      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)

      Priyambada Mohapatra              ......                   Petitioner

                                    -Versus-

      State of Odisha & Others ....               Opposite Parties
      _____________________________________________

           For Petitioner   : Mr. A.C.Panda, Advocate,

           For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S.Routray,
                            Additional Standing Counsel

      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
             JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                JUDGMENT

13th January, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

22.07.2022 passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer (Rental

Colony, Bhubaneswar) in Rent Objection Case No. 39 of

2019.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case

are that the property in question was leased out to one

Sailabala Mishra vide WLL Case No. 517/1970. The

property was also mutated subsequently in her favour

and ROR was issued. The lessee, after obtaining

necessary permission from the competent authority vide

Misc. Case No. 31 of 1980, sold away a portion of the

property measuring Ac. 0.088 decimals to one Rajalaxmi

Mohanty vide RSD No. 3022 dated 27.04.1981. Said

Rajalaxmi Mohanty alienated the land in favour of

Anusuya Mohanty vide RSD dated 07.08.1982. The

petitioner purchased the property from said Anasuya

Mohanty vide RSD dated 05.07.2005. The petitioner

subsequently converted the purchased land from

agricultural to Gharabari in OLR Misc. Case No. 8484 of

2009, which was duly intimated to the ASO in Form-K.

The petitioner thereafter constructed her residential

house over the purchased plot. The Misc. Case in

question was initiated pursuant to order dated

13.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 13561

of 2019. In the meantime, a Parcha was issued in favour

of the petitioner but subsequently, the land was shown in

the Government Khata. The petitioner approached this

Court in W.P.(C). No. 13561 of 2019, which was disposed

of directing the Asst. Settlement Officer to ascertain as to

whether the lease still exists or the same was cancelled

by the Government before recording of the land in the

name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Misc. Case in

question was initiated by the Asst. Settlement Officer on

06.09.2018. The petitioner was represented by her

husband on different dates and pursuant to direction of

the authority also filed the relevant documents.

Ultimately, by order dated 22.07.2022, the Asst.

Settlement Officer observed that the petitioner is not

cooperating with the Court being absent for more than

five times. It was also observed that the petitioner could

not produce the lease sanction order of the Tahasildar,

trace map and lease confirmation order and therefore, the

authority was not inclined to 'alienate' the land from the

Government Khata in absence of relevant lease

documents.

3. Heard Mr. A.C.Panda, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned Additional

Standing Counsel.

4. Mr. Panda would submit that the petitioner has

produced all relevant documents but there was no

direction to produce the lease sanction order, trace map

and confirmation order. The petitioner cannot also be

blamed for non-furnishing of the lease status or existence

report by the ADM and Tahasildar. That apart, the Asst.

Settlement Officer has not recorded any reasons for not

being inclined to alienate the land from the Government

Khata.

5. Mr. S.S. Routray, learned ASC would submit that

the petitioner is required to prove her own case and

cannot rely upon a weakness or inaction of the

Government authorities.

6. Having perused the entire order sheet of Misc. Case

No. 39 of 2019, copy enclosed as Annexure-5, this Court

finds that the petitioner was represented by her husband

all through. She further claims to have filed all relevant

documents pursuant to the order passed on 06.12.2019.

As argued by Mr. Panda, the petitioner obviously cannot

be blamed for the inaction of the ADM & Tahasildar in

filing the lease status or existence report etc. That apart,

this Court finds that while not being inclined to record

the property in the name of the petitioner by deleting it

from the Government Khata, the Asst. Settlement Officer

has not recorded any reason whatsoever. It is trite law

that an order passed by quasi-judicial authority must be

supplied by adequate reasons. As has often been

reiterated, reason is the soul of the order. That apart, the

documents said to have been filed by the petitioner have

not been considered at all. There is nothing in the order

sheet to show that the petitioner was ever called upon or

directed to file lease sanction order, trace map and

confirmation order. The impugned order therefore, is

rendered vulnerable on such score and hence, warrants

interference.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ application is

allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is

remitted to the Asst. Settlement Officer to hear the case

afresh after granting full opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and by passing a reasoned order. To cut short

the delay, the petitioner is directed to appear before

Settlement Officer on 28th of this month for fixation of

further date of hearing.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak