Disposed¶23

Meenarani Seth v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Jul 2025WP(C)/18088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RoR correction; Record of Rights; Abad Jogya Anabadi; Government Khata; Orissa Survey and Settlement Act 1958; Section 12-B; Section 15(b); revision; condonation of delay; withdrawal of writ petition; Hal Plot No.1775; Sabik Plot No.1775; Mouza-Raghunathpalli; Kolabira Tahasil; Jharsuguda; State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa; WP(C) 18088/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn at the Petitioners' request; they may pursue the statutory remedy of revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 along with an application for condonation of delay, and the revisional authority may weigh the pendency of this writ petition among the grounds for condonation. ¶23

Meenarani Seth Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners are entitled to correction of the Record of Rights (RoR) in respect of Hal Plot No.1775 under Khata No.271 (Ac.1.580 decimals, corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1775, Ac.1.58 decimals, Patita) of Mouza-Raghunathpalli, Kolabira Tahasil, Jharsuguda, currently recorded under Government Khata as “Abad Jogya Anabadi”.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the final RoR (Annexure-1) has already been published under Section 12-B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioners is a revision under Section 15(b) of that Act; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with the observation that the Petitioners may avail the statutory remedy for correction of the RoR entries.

¶23

Key takeaways

When entertaining the Petitioners' application for condonation of delay accompanying the revision, the revisional authority may take into consideration the pendency of this writ petition along with any other grounds taken therein.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C) No.18088 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 28.07.2025) seeking correction of the RoR for Hal Plot No.1775, Khata No.271, Mouza-Raghunathpalli, Kolabira Tahasil, Jharsuguda, recorded under Government Khata as “Abad Jogya Anabadi”, was disposed of as withdrawn on counsel's submission that the final RoR (Annexure-1) had already been published under Section 12-B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, making a revision under Section 15(b) of that Act the appropriate remedy. The Court observed that the revisional authority, while entertaining the condonation-of-delay application, may take into account the pendency of this writ petition along with other grounds. No adjudication on the merits of the RoR entries was made.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.18088 of 2025

¶3

1. Meenarani Seth …. Petitioners

¶4

2. Chinarani Barik

¶5

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mallick, Advocate -versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

2. The Collector, Jharsuguda

¶9

3. The Tahasildar, Kilabira

¶10

Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

28.07.2025

Order No.

02.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Petitioners in this writ application pray for correction of the Record of Rights (RoR) in respect of Hal Plot No.1775 under Khata No.271 to an extent of Ac.1.580 decimals corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1775 to an extent of Ac.1.58 decimals (Patita) of Mouza-Raghunathpalli under Kolabira Tahasil in the district of Jharsuguda which has been recorded under Government Khata under “Abad Jogya Anabadi” status.

¶19

In course of hearing, Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since final RoR (Annexure-1) under Section 12-B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 has already been published, appropriate remedy for the Petitioners would be to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the said Act assailing the correctness of the entries made in the said RoR. He,

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

therefore, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition in order to file revision along with an application for condonation of delay.

¶22

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the same.

¶23

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with an observation that the Petitioners may avail statutory remedy for correction of entries in the RoR under Annexure-1. While entertaining the petition for condonation of delay, the revisional authority may take into consideration the pendency of this writ petition along with other grounds, if any, taken therein.

¶24

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶26

RKS

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Jul-2025 10:31:44

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Meenarani Seth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenarani Seth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netrananda Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Kumar Nayak @ Pramod Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Jhanja Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Mahanta Sri Narayana Ramanuj Das Vs Appellate Authority Cum Honble Minister of Law, Bbsr

K.Sujata Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Panda Vs the State of Odisha