[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Afr Susanta Kumar Sahoo & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... ... on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 6318 of 2026
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India)
AFR Susanta Kumar Sahoo & others ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ....... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
___________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : M/s. Padmanav Bhutia, P.K. Nayak
B.C. Pradhan & M. Hasan,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. S.N. Patnaik
Addl. Government Advocate
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
st
31 March, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge
the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Collector, Jajpur
(opposite party No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2025, whereby
their representation was rejected on the ground that the
installation of the statue of Late Bandhu Mohanty has been
made over surplus Gochara land and that no illegality has
been committed by the authorities.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
land appertaining to Khata No.1432, Plot No. 3178 measuring
Ac.10.75 dec. situated in Mouza Duttapur in District Jajpur
stands recorded in the name of the State of Odisha under the
kisam 'Gochara' meant for grazing purposes of cattle, goats
and sheep of the villagers. The petitioners being residents of
the said village claim that said land has been traditionally
used for grazing purposes and any conversion thereof would
adversely affect the rights of the villagers.
3. It is stated that pursuant to instructions
communicated by the District Administration vide Letter No.
621 dated 20.02.2024, an area measuring Ac. 4.00 dec. out
of the aforesaid land was proposed to be utilized for
installation of a bronze statue of Late Bandhu Mohanty.
Being aggrieved by such proposed utilization of Gochara land,
the petitioners submitted representations on 14.09.2020 and
02.04.2025 before the authorities requesting not to divert the
said land for any purpose other than grazing. As no action
was taken on their representations, the petitioners
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13424 of 2025, which
was disposed of on 15.05.2025 with a direction to opposite
party Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioners
and pass a lawful order within a stipulated period. Pursuant
thereto, opposite party No. 2 instituted Misc. Case No. 15 of
2025 and called for reports from the Tahasildar,
Dasarathpur.
4. In course of enquiry, the Tahasildar obtained a report
from the RI, Radagaon, who submitted that the land in
question is recorded as 'Gochara' and furnished a trace map
along with a statement indicating availability of Gochara land
in the village. It was reported that there exists Ac. 8.06 dec. of
surplus Gochara land in Mouza Duttapur. The Sub-Collector,
Jajpur also submitted an enquiry report affirming the said
position and stating that land measuring Ac. 4.00 dec. was
identified out of the total Ac. 10.75 dec. for installation of the
statue and that the same has already been installed over a
portion thereof. The Collector, upon due consideration
dismissed the Misc. case holding, inter alia, that the statue
has been installed over surplus Gochara land and that no
illegality has been committed. Said order is impugned in the
present writ application.
5. Heard Mr. P. Bhutia, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
6. Mr. Bhutia would argue that land in question being
recorded as 'Gochara' is reserved for a specific public
purpose, i.e., grazing of cattle of the villagers and the same
cannot be diverted for any other purpose without following
due procedure of law. He submits that the proposed and
subsequent utilization of a portion of such land for
installation of a statue is completely unauthorized. He further
argues that the concept of 'surplus Gochara land' as relied
upon in the impugned order has no statutory basis and
cannot be a ground to justify diversion of land meant for a
specific communal purpose.
He further submits that the impugned order suffers
from non-application of mind inasmuch as the Collector has
mechanically relied upon the reports of subordinate officials
without independently examining the legality of the action.
According to him, the objections raised by the petitioners and
the villagers have not been considered, and no reasoned
finding has been recorded as to how the diversion of Gochara
land is permissible in law. He also submits that the
installation of the statue having been carried out during the
pendency of the consideration itself shows a pre-determined
approach on the part of the authorities thereby vitiating the
entire decision making process.
7. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik would argue that pursuant to
the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition a
detailed enquiry was conducted by the competent authorities,
including the Tahasildar, Dasarathpur and the Sub-Collector,
Jajpur, and reports were obtained after field verification. He
further submits that the RI, Radagaon, in his report along
with trace map and calculation sheet(De-reservation
Statement) has specifically indicated that Ac. 8.06 dec. of
Gochara land is available as surplus in Mouza Duttapur. He
argues that only a limited portion, i.e., Ac. 4.00 dec. out of
the total Ac. 10.75 dec. was identified for installation of the
statue and even the actual utilization is Ac 0.02 dec out of Ac.
4.00 dec. Thus, according to him, sufficient Gochara land
continues to remain available for grazing purposes and no
prejudice is caused to the villagers.
He submits that the identification of land was made
pursuant to administrative instructions issued by the
competent authority and after due verification by field
Officers. He also argues that the petitioners despite being
afforded opportunity did not appear before the authority
during the proceeding and failed to substantiate their
objections. In such circumstances, the authority was justified
in proceeding on the basis of available records.
8. This Court having heard learned counsel for the
parties at length and upon perusal of materials placed on
record and the impugned order finds that pursuant to the
direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition the
competent authority initiated enquiry and called for reports
from the Tahasildar, Dasarathpur as well as the Sub-
Collector, Jajpur. The Tahasildar, on the basis of field enquiry
conducted through the RI, Radagaon, submitted a report
along with trace map and calculation sheet(de-reservation
statement)indicating the availability of Gochara land in the
village. Said report specifically records that Ac. 8.06 dec. of
Gochara land remains surplus in Mouza Duttapur.
It further transpires from the record that only
Ac.4.00 dec. out of the total Ac.10.75 dec. was identified for
the purpose of installation of the statue pursuant to
administrative instructions and the actual area utilized for
such installation is merely Ac.0.02 dec.. Thus, even after
such utilization, substantial extent of land continues to
remain available for grazing purposes.
9. In the above factual background, this Court finds
that the determination regarding availability of surplus
Gochara land is based on field verification and supported by
documentary materials such as the trace map and
calculation sheet submitted by the RI and affirmed by the
Sub-Collector. There is nothing on record to show that such
findings are either perverse or unsupported by evidence. On
the contrary, the materials clearly indicate that adequate
Gochara land continues to exist for the use of the villagers
and the essential character of the land has not been
materially impaired.
10. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding
impermissibility of conversion of Gochara land is concerned,
this Court finds that the utilization is minimal, based on
administrative assessment and does not result in deprivation
of grazing rights. The concept of surplus availability, as
reflected in the enquiry report, cannot be said to be arbitrary
when it is founded upon objective assessment of land
availability and requirement in the village.
11. Another significant aspect which emerges from the
impugned order is that the petitioners did not appear before
the authority despite repeated notice and failed to prosecute
their case. The proceeding before the authority was initiated
pursuant to their own representation and direction of this
Court. Once opportunity of hearing was afforded, it was
incumbent upon the petitioners to participate in the
proceeding and substantiate their objections. Having failed to
do so, the petitioners cannot now contend that their
grievance was not properly considered. The authority, in such
circumstances was justified in proceeding on the basis of
available records and reports.
12. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court
does not sit in appeal over administrative orders. Unless the
order under challenge is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or in
violation of statutory provisions, interference is not
warranted. In the present case, no such infirmity is made
out.
13. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds
no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 31st March, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Mar-2026 16:20:43
