[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dinabandhu Patel vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.372 of 2021
Dinabandhu Patel .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.03.2026
(Hybrid mode)
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present dispute is arising out of the claim of
the appellant for settlement of the land in subject. He
submitted that his father in the year 1979 had donated
a piece of land to the Government for construction of the
road and in exchange of that; he has been in possession
of the land in subject. An encroachment case being
Encroachment Case No. 139 of 2019 has been initiated
for eviction of the appellant from the said land. Besides
that, Encroachment Case No. 38 of 1996, was also
initiated earlier. In both the proceedings, the appellant
contended that the land in question is liable to be settled
in his name, as his father had donated a piece of land
for construction of road in exchange. The said exchange
theory put forth by the appellant did not find favour
from the authority concerned. Therefore, the Tahasildar,
Ambabhona vide his order dated 03.03.2020 refused to
entertain his application and directed for eviction from
the encroached land. The said order dated 03.03.2020
was assailed by the appellant by filing an appeal under
Section 12 of the Orissa Prevention of Land
Encroachment Act. The Encroachment Appeal No. 01 of
2021 filed by the appellant was turned down by the Sub-
Collector, Bargarh, vide its order dated 29.01.2021 and
10.03.2021. The appellant filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing both the
orders dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Tahasildar,
Ambabhona, which has been upheld by the Sub-
Collector, Bargarh, vide its order dated 10.03.2021. The
said writ petition has been turned down by the learned
Single Judge, vide order dated 23.03.2021. Hence, the
present writ appeal.
3. When the matter was taken up on 25.04.2023,
the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the
following orders:-
"1. Learned counsel for the Appellant wants to
avail of the alternate remedy of a revision.
However, this plea was not taken before the
learned Single Judge and the writ petition has
been dismissed on merits. It is therefore not
possible to accede to the above prayer of the
Appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant then
states that no argue on merits, he needs more
time.
3. List on 27th July, 2023."
4. Subsequently on 27.07.2023, this Court raised
the question of maintainability of the writ appeal against
the order passed by the learned Single Judge which
appears to have passed while exercising the jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant has been
taking time to satisfy the Court regarding the
maintainability of the intra court appeal. Today, when
the matter was taken up, he could not appropriately
answer regarding the maintainability of the writ appeal.
5. It is well settled principle of law that an order
passed by the learned Single Judge exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, no intra-Court appeal is maintainable. Although
the appellant had filed the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the
Tahasildar as well as the Sub-Collector, but by the
nature of writ sought by the appellant it is abundantly
clear that the learned Single Judge has exercised its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. In the matter of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc.
vs. Vikram Cement Etc., reported in AIR 2009
SUPREME COURT 713 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
authoritatively held that no intra-Court appeal against
the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
exercising Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
available. It was held thus:-
"24. Bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
Act, quoted above, leaves no room for doubt that it allows
a party aggrieved by a decision of a Single Judge of the
High Court to appeal to a Division Bench of the High
Court if a Single Judge has rendered a judgment or
passed an order in exercise of original jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Proviso to sub-
section (1) expressly declares that no such appeal shall
lie against an order passed in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
25. It is, therefore, clear that if the order is passed by a
Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of original
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, an intra
court appeal would lie. If, on the other hand, a Single
Judge exercises power of superintendence under Article
227 of the Constitution, intra court appeal would not be
competent."
6. In view of the foregoing, since we are of the view
that the learned Single Judge has excised jurisdiction
under article 227 of the Constitution of India to dispose
of the writ the impugned order, no intra court appeal
remedy is available to the appellant to assail the same.
Hence we are constrained to dismiss the writ appeal
being not maintainable.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Ashok
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2026 10:35:33
