[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tanulata Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Jan-2026 18:49:47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9081 OF 2014
Tanulata Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.01.2026
10. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the ex
parte order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-6 series) and order
dated 19th December, 2013 (Annexure-7) passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar.
2.1. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the Opposite
Parties to record the land in her favour pertaining the Plot
No.8082/8527 under Khata No.2305 situated at Andharua Mouza
under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity
'the case land'), which she purchased by virtue of a sale deed
referring to Sabik Record of Right.
3. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that Plot No.2723/3279 to an extent of Ac.2.000 decimals of Khata
No.645/153 situated at Mouza Andharua was settled in favour of
Manorama Gouda, W/o. Gopinath Gouda in W.L. Lease Case
No.1002 of 1978 for agricultural purpose. Before expiry of five
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Jan-2026 18:49:47
years, she with permission of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, alienated
the case land in favour of one, Kailash Nath Suar vide Registered
Sale Deed No.3650 dated 15th May, 1981. But, subsequently, a
proceeding under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land
Settlement Act, 1962 was initiated and lease granted in favour of
lessee, Manorama Gouda was cancelled vide order dated 16th
February, 1982 passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner being aggrieved, moved this Court in
W.P.(C) No.3294 of 2008 assailing the said order. But, the writ
petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23rd March,
2021.
3.1. The lessee, Manorama Gouda, being aggrieved by order
dated 16th February, 1982 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate in Revision Case No.201 of 1981 cancelling the lease,
preferred OJC No.815 of 1990. The said writ petition was disposed
of vide order dated 16th December, 1982 setting aside the order
dated 16th February, 1982 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate and remitting the matter to the Additional District
Magistrate for fresh adjudication giving the legal heirs of the lessee
an opportunity of hearing. Again after death of Manorama Gouda,
her legal heirs preferred W.P.(C) No.5768 of 2016 assailing the
self-same order and this Court setting aside the said order vide
order dated 6th April, 2016, directed the Authority to dispose of the
revision case within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said
direction, Revision Case No.201 of 1981 was heard afresh and
again vide order dated 20th May, 2017, the Additional District
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Jan-2026 18:49:47
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar reiterated his earlier order by cancelling
the lease granted in favour of Manorama Gouda.
3.2 The said order dated 20th May, 2017 was assailed by the
legal heirs of Manorama Gouda before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.12599 of 2017. But, vide judgment dated 27th June, 2023, the
writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Additional
District Magistrate. The order passed in W.P.(C) No.12599 of
2017 was never challenged and attained its finality.
4. Thus, both the order of cancellation of lease granted in
favour of Manorama Gouda and the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.12599 of 2017 are in force till date. Since the
Petitioner claims title through the lessee and the lease granted in
her favour has already been cancelled, the core question that is
required to be answered in this case is whether the writ petition
challenging the subsequent orders passed by the Settlement
Authorities directing to record the land in favour of the
Government, is maintainable.
5. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for
an adjournment to address on the issue of maintainability.
6. Put up this matter on 17th February, 2026 under the heading
'Prioritised By The Hon'ble Supreme Court'.
7. Interim order dated 14th October, 2014 passed in Misc. Case
No.8150 of 2014 shall continue till the next date.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
ms Judge
