Allowed

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal v. Sub-Registrar, Betnoti, Mayurbhanj

Orissa HC7 Jul 2025WP(C)/13226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged an FAO order under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act for non-application of mind, as it referred to an unrelated temporary injunction matter. The High Court quashed the order and remanded the appeal to the District Judge to decide afresh with hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FAO order dated 28.02.2025 quashed; F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 remanded to District Judge, Mayurbhanj for fresh disposal per law with opportunity of hearing within 3 months.

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal Vs Sub-Registrar, Betnoti, Mayurbhanj — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶3

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

¶5

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal

¶6

… Petitioner.

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Sub-Registrar, Betnoti, Mayurbhanj & Another … Opposite Parties .

¶9

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. G.N. Parida, Advocate

¶11

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

¶12

P R E S E N T:

¶13

HONOURABLE

¶14

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶15

Date of Hearing : 07.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 07.07.2025

¶16

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶20

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned final order dated 28.02.2025 passed in F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada on the ground of non-application of mind.

¶21

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC for the State.

¶22

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the paragraph No.7 of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in F.A.O No.3 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj contending that, the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj has reflected/narrated the materials of an another case concerning temporary injunction in the impugned order vide Annexure-7 passed in F.A.O. No.03 of 2023, which has no nexus/connection with the matters of the

¶23

said F.A.O. No.3 of 2023.

¶24

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

4. Learned SC for the State also did not dispute to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the reference of an another matter concerning temporary injunction in Para No.7 of the impugned order vide Annexure-7 for passing of such Annexure-7 by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, which has no nexus/connection with the matters in dispute in F.A.O. No.3/2023 between the parties.

¶27

5. The non-application of the mind of the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada is well evident from the Para No.7 of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in F.A.O. No.03 of 2023. Because, the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-7 referring to an another matter in Para No.7 of that Annexure-7, which is not connected with the matter in dispute between the parties.

¶28

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 is bad

¶29

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

for non-application of mind, which is against the principles of natural justice.

¶32

Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada cannot be sustainable under law. The same is liable to be quashed.

¶33

6. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

¶34

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed

¶35

The impugned order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada is quashed.

¶36

8. The matter vide F.A.O. No.3 of 2023 is remitted back/remanded back to the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada to dispose of the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order.

¶37

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

9. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶40

10. Registry is directed to communicate copy of this Judgment immediately to the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.

¶41

11. Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted to the petitioner on proper application.

¶42

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶43

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 07 .07. 2025// Utkalika Nayak Jr. Stenographer

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutt ack, India. Date: 08-Jul-2025 17:23:19

¶46

WP(C) No.13226 of 2025

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal v. Sub-Registrar, Betnoti, Mayurbhanj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal v. Sub-Registrar, Betnoti, Mayurbhanj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushilarani Behera Vs Hagur Mahalik

Sabita Agrawala Vs State of Odisha

Nishamani Sahoo Vs Rohit Kumar Prusty

Haripriya Mohanta Vs Collector Mayurbhanj

Nilambar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha