[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
) Siba Prasad Parida @ vs Muralidhar ..... Opposite on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.2865 of 2025
1) Siba Prasad Parida @ ..... Petitioners
Mahesh Kumar Parida
2) Sankarsan Parida Represented by Adv. -
Nirod Kumar Sahu
-versus-
Muralidhar ..... Opposite
Urmal,Tahasildar,Lathikata,Sundergarh Parties
Represented by
Adv. -
Gyanaloka
Mohanty, SC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
ORDER
23.03.2026
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This CONTC was listed today for hearing.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the alleged contemnor are
present.
4. This CONTC was filed by the petitioners against
the alleged contemnor (Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar,
Lathikata) alleging violation of the direction given by
this Court in the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.2270 of 2025.
In the said order dated 09.04.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.2270 of 2025, the contemnor was directed
to decide the Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 on the
basis of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Court in T.S. No.46 of 1998 following the principles
enunciated in the ratio of the decision between Sanatan
Acharya Vrs. Tahasildar, Panposh and Ors reported in
2016 (II) OLR 290 within a period of one month from
the date of communication of that order.
5. It appears from the judgment and decree passed in
T.S. No.46 of 1998 (Annexure-4 in W.P.(C) No.2270 of
2025) that, the right, title and interest of the of the
plaintiff (predecessors of the petitioners) in respect of
the disputed land which forms a part of plot No.19/70
an area of Ac.2.67 decimals was declared and the
plaintiff's possession thereto was confirmed, the land
appertaining to plot No.19/70 as per the finally
published record of right be demarcated by a Map
through the process of law and the settlement Map be
corrected in accordance with the said observation.
6. When, in spite of the above directions given by
this Court as per the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in
WPC No.2270 of 2025, the alleged contemnor i.e.
Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar, Lathikata did not comply
the said directions, then the petitioners filed this
CONTC against Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar,
Lathikata praying for initiation of appropriate
proceedings against him under the provisions of Section
14 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 and to punish
him appropriately for his disobedience to the
order/direction dated 09.04.2025 passed in W.P. (C)
No.2270 of 2025.
7. After filing of this CONTC, the alleged
contemnor filed a compliance affidavit through learned
SC for the State annexing the copy of the final disposal
order of the Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 disallowing
the said Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 of the
petitioners assigning the reasons in that order for the
dismissal of Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 of the
petitioners that,
"the land in question is neither in
possession of the petitioners Balunkeswar Parida nor
any of his successors, which is confirmed from the
joint field verification report of Revenue Supervisor &
Revenue Inspector, Brahmanitarang vide letter
No.155 dated 14.08.2025 of R.I. Brahmanitarang. Out
of Ac.0.680, one Dasarthi Kisan & Duba Ekka of
Kalokudar area in possession of area of Ac0.070 &
0.030 by constructing market complex and Dhaba
respectively and the balance area is lying vacant.
Therefore, in view of the facts
and circumstances discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs, it was held by him (alleged contemnor)
that, the petitioner is not in possession over the suit
land. Hence, the mutation application of the
petitioners for mutation is disallowed."
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, dismissal to the mutation case of the
petitioners as per the order dated 16.08.2025 passed in
Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 by the alleged
contemnor i.e. Tahasildar, Lathikata is not in
compliance to the direction given by this Court in the
order dated 09.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.2270 of
2025. In the said order passed in WP(C) No.2270 of
2025, specific direction was given to the Tahasildar,
Lathikata (alleged contemnor) to dispose of the
Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 of the petitioners
following guidelines made in the ratio of the decision
between Sanatan Acharya Vrs. Tahasildar, Panposh
and Ors reported in 2016 (II) OLR 290 on the basis of
the judgment and decree passed in the suit vide T.S.
No.46 of 1998. But, the Tahasildar, Lathikata has
violated the said directions of this Court in the Order
dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2270 of 2025
deliberately and intentionally.
On the contrary, learned SC for the alleged
contemnor submitted that, the order dated 09.04.2025
passed in W.P.(C) No.2270 of 2025 has already been
complied with by disposing of the Mutation Case
No.723 of 2018 of the petitioners on dated 16.08.2025
in dismissing the same. For which, the CONTC filed by
the petitioners cannot be entertainable under law.
9. When, the specific direction was given to the
Tahasildar, Lathikata in the order dated 09.04.2025
passed in W.P.(C) No.2270 of 2025 for deciding and
disposing of the Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 of the
petitioners following the guidelines in the decision
between Sanatan Acharya Vrs. Tahasildar, Panposh
and Ors reported in 2016 (II) OLR 290 and when as per
the ratio of the said decision, it is the duty of the
Revenue Officer like the alleged contemnor i.e.
Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar, Lathikata to respect the
decision of the Civil Court passed in the civil suit and
he cannot ignore the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Court and when the right, title and interest of the
plaintiff (predecessors of the petitioners) was declared
in respect of the disputed case land, then, at this
juncture, notice is required to be issued to the alleged
contemnor (Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar, Lathikata)
asking him to show cause in writing about the cause and
reason of non-compliance of the above directions given
in the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.2270 of 2025 by filing the said show-cause
in the Court remaining present personally and to explain
the show-cause if it requires by the Court.
10. Registry is to transmit the copy of this order to
Muralidhar Urmal, Tahasildar, Lathikata for submission
of the written show cause being present in person on the
next date and to explain about the same if the same
requires by the Court.
11. List this matter four weeks after.
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAKUtkalika
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 24-Mar-2026 18:50:54
