Disposed¶27

Hanuman Khedaria v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Sept 2025WP(C)/18376/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court writ petition (W.P.(C) 18376/2016) disposed of as infructuous on 22.09.2025; sought mandamus against Clause-5 of Schedule-VI of the Orissa/Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983, alleged ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; petitioner paid dues and filed memo; question of law expressly kept open for an appropriate case; no ruling on validity of the clause; no precedent cited; coram Justices K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous, with the question of law regarding the vires of Clause-5 of Schedule VI of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 expressly kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. ¶27

Hanuman Khedaria Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTTA CK Date: 23-Sep-2025 11:34:27

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C). NO.18376 OF 2016

¶5

Hanuman Khedaria

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

State of Odisha and others

¶10

…. Opp. Parties

¶11

Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

22.09.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following relief:

¶18

“ The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to-

¶19

Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the opp. Parties and their instrumentalities not to give effect to provisions of Clause-5 of Schedule-VI of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 and to declare the same as ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India, specially the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 21 and other related rights enshrined in the Constitution.

¶20

Issue any appropriate writ/writs, order/orders deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.

¶21

And for which act of your kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound remain ever pray.”

¶22

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

¶23

although the vires of Clause-5 of Schedule VI of Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 is under challenge in this writ petition, but the Petitioner, in the meantime, has paid the dues and thus, the matter has become academic in respect of the Petitioner. He also files a memo in support of his submission, which is taken on record.

¶24

Page 1 of 2

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTTA CK Date: 23-Sep-2025 11:34:27

¶27

In view of the memo filed, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous keeping the question of law open to be decided in appropriate case.

¶28

Judge

¶29

Rojalin

¶30

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Hanuman Khedaria v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Khedaria v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilamani Panda Vs Collector, Bargarh

Chittaranjan Das Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Padhan Vs State of Odisha

Yogesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Odisha

Benudhar Meher Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Ku.Mohanty Vs State and Anr.