(An Application Under Articles 226 & 227 ... vs Pradipta @ Pradipta Kumar Baral .... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 380 Ori

Orissa High Court

(An Application Under Articles 226 & 227 ... vs Pradipta @ Pradipta Kumar Baral .... ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      W.P.(C). No. 35680 of 2025

      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)
      Bishnu Charan Baral & Anr     ......     Petitioners

                                  -Versus-

      Pradipta @ Pradipta Kumar Baral .... Opposite Party

      _____________________________________________

        For Petitioner   : Mr. P. Panda, Advocate

         For Opp. Party : None

         _______________________________________________________


                        CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA



                              JUDGMENT

16th January, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner challenges the order dated

19.05.2025 passed by the ADM, Jagatsinghpur in OLR

Revision Case No. 2 of 2021 confirming the order dated

29.07.2017 passed by the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur

in OLR Appeal Case No. 06 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and

Opposite Party are said to be brothers, being the sons of

Late Prahalad Baral. An application was filed under

Section 19(1)(c) of the OLR Act for amicable partition of

the property. By order dated 28.02.2008, the Tahasildar,

Jagatsinghpur allowed the application and directed

correction of the R.O.R. Long thereafter, the opposite

party filed appeal being OLR Appeal No. 6 of 2016 before

the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur alleging that the order

of the Tahasildar was passed without his consent and

behind his back. A specific plea was taken by the

opposite party that his signature appearing in the Amin's

report was forged. Several other grounds were also

raised.

3. The Sub-Collector, in his order dated 29.07.2017,

compared the signatures appearing in the

Panchayatnama, the Amin's report and the Vakalatnama

of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the

signature in the Panchayatnama tallied with the

Vakalatnama, whereas the signature appearing in the

order sheet did not tally with the signature in the

panchayatnama. On such findings, the order passed by

the Tahasildar was set aside and the matter was

remanded for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity

to the parties, strictly following the provision under

Section 19 (1) of the OLR Act.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in

revision before the Court of learned Additional District

Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in OLR Revision Case No. 2 of

2021. The ADM, upon independent appreciation of the

facts, found nothing wrong with the order of the Sub-

Collector in verifying the signatures of the parties

personally. On such basis, the ADM was of the view that

the field inquiry of the Amin as well as the orders passed

by the Tahasildar were behind the back of the opposite

party which violates the provision under Section 19(1) of

the OLR Act. The ADM further held that the parties had

no express consent for amicable partition of the property

in question. The revision was dismissed accordingly.

5. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has

approached this Court with the present application with

the following prayer:

"Under the circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this CMP, issue notice to the Opp.Party and after hearing be pleased to set aside the impugned orders Annexure-7 & 8 and be pleased to pass any other appropriate writ/order/directions as deemed fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

6. Heard Mr.P. Panda, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

7. Mr. Panda would submit that the Sub-Collector

could not have compared the signatures on his own and

in case, the Opposite Party thought that the order was

obtained by fraud, the proper course was to approach the

civil Court. He further submits that the revenue

authorities have no power to determine the question of

fraud.

8. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention

as above as it is contrary to the settled position of law

that every Court has inherent power to entertain

application citing fraud as a ground to set aside the

original judgment passed by it. This Court finds that the

Sub-Collector, being the appellate authority and the

ADM, being the revisional authority have taken pain to

personally examine the signatures of the Opposite Party

and were subjectively satisfied that the order passed by

the Tahasildar was not on the basis of consent of the

parties. The matter was therefore, rightly remitted for

fresh adjudication by setting aside the impugned orders.

9. In view of the foregoing narration, this Court finds

no reason, much less any palpable legal infirmity in the

impugned orders so as to interfere. In any event, the

matter having been remanded to the Tahasildar for fresh

adjudication, it would be open to the parties to put forth

their respective contentions in respect of the so-called

amicable partition. It goes without saying that in such

event, the Tahasildar shall pass appropriate orders,

strictly in terms of the provision under Section 19(1)(c) of

the OLR Act.

10. The writ application, being devoid of merit is

therefore, dismissed.

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

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak