Tapan Kumar Sahoo Vs Collector, Khurdha

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-2) passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court No.II, Bhubaneswar in R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014.

¶17

2 . Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3).

¶18

3 . During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 28.10.2024

¶19

(Annexure-2) passed in R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014 and contended that,

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

the said order has been passed for rejection of R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014

¶22

filed by the petitioner “on the ground of non-filing of the documents concerning sabik Hal comparison, flow of title and documents relating to possession”.

¶23

The learned SC for the State argued in support of the impugned order contending that, the impugned order is neither illegal nor unreasonable.

¶24

4 . The required documents relating to comparison of sabik and Hal records and documents relating to possession are available in the settlement office of the Addl. Commissioner, as their office is the custodian of such records. For which, the said documents could have been called for by the Addl. Commissioner for perusal and disposal of R.P. No.1455 of 2014 instead of blaming to the petitioner for nonproduction of the same.

¶25

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a case between Gajendra Prasad Das Vrs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 2016 (2) O.J.R. (265) that, if the petitioner has not produced the nonavailability certificate, it can be verified by the State Government being the custodian of the Government records, because, the State Authorities are the custodian of the official records.

¶26

So, the impugned order of rejection to the R.P. Case No.1455 of

¶27

2014 on dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-2) by the Addl. Commissioner,

¶28

Addl. Revisional Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack only on the ground of non-production of documents by the petitioner cannot be sustainable under law. The same is liable to be quashed.

¶31

5 . So, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed.

¶32

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

¶33

The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-2) passed in R.P.

¶34

Case No.1455 of 2014 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional

¶35

Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack is quashed (set aside).

¶36

The matter vide R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for deciding the same afresh as per law within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner in that R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014 as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties.

¶37

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014 on dated 22.09.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the said Court as to further proceedings of that R.P. Case No.1455 of 2014.

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39