Santosh Kapoor Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (Central Divisuion), Odisha, Cuttack

2 . The Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (Central Division), Cuttack in OGLS Appeal No.2 of 2023.

¶15

Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that assailing the order of resumption dated 09.04.2007 passed by the Collector, Puri in Balu Resumption Case No.1 of 2007 initiated under section 3(B) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’)., the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.8200 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.04.2023 with a liberty to the Petitioner to file a properly constituted Appeal under Section 7-A(1) of the Act before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed OGLS Appeal

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

No.2 of 2023 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack. The case was posted to 06.09.2024 when the Petitioner was directed to submit the status of the case filed in the court of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack as reflected in the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in Balu Resumption Case No.1 of 2007. The matter was then adjourned to 01.11.2024, 20.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 28.02.2025 and lastly on 16.05.2025. On the said date, the Petitioner filed a memo stating that he was not in a position to get the status of the case as directed vide order dated 06.09.2024. But the Revenue Divisional Commissioner did not accept the same and dismissed the OGLS Appeal.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr.Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners that on 28.05.2022, the Petitioner had filed a memo praying time to substitute the legal heirs of the sole Petitioner who died in the meantime. Although time was allowed but without providing any opportunity to file any application for substitution and without entertaining the memo filed before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner on 16.05.2025 (Annexure-2), the Revenue Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal. Thus, the Petitioner lost a valuable right to pursue the appeal filed against the order under Section 3-B of the Act. Hence, he prays for providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the OGLS Appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2025.

¶19

Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that from 06.09.2024 till 16.05.2025, the Petitioner had not shown any interest in participating in the hearing of

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

the Appeal by providing status of the case before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. It was never stated before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner that the Petitioner was not in a position to get such information. The memo under Annexure-2 does not bear any endorsement of acceptance by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. It is also not known whether any attempt was made by the Petitioner to file such a memo or not. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner was thoroughly negligent in pursuing the OGLS Appeal No.2 of 2023. Hence no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner.

¶22

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that a resumption order under section 3-B has been passed against the Petitioner in Balu Resumption Case No.1 of 2007. Assailing the same, the Petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.8200 of 2008. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 05.04.2022 providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to file a properly constituted Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, OGLS Appeal No.2 of 2023 was filed.

¶23

It is submitted by Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners that in spite of his best efforts, the Petitioners could not get the details of the case pending before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack as reflected in the resumption order. It further appears that the sole Appellant died during pendency of the Appeal and the Appellant had filed a memo to take steps for his substitution.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

The legal heirs of the sole Appellant before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner are the Petitioners in the present writ petition. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 has been apparently passed against a dead person, which is a nullity.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Odisha, Cuttack in OGLS Appeal No.2 of 2023 and remits the matter to enable the Petitioners to file an application for substitution of the sole Appellant therein within a period of two weeks hence. Upon receipt of such application for substitution, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner shall substitute the legal heirs of the sole Appellant and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is expected that the Petitioners shall cooperate with the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Odisha, Cuttack for adjudication of Appeal in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has neither delved into the merit of the case of the Petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack nor expressed any opinion on the same.

¶28

Himansu Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Oct-2025 19:54:15

¶30

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Santosh Kapoor v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (Central Divisuion), Odisha, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kapoor v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (Central Divisuion), Odisha, Cuttack

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

Anusuya Devi Agarwal Vs Collector, Cuttack

Sukadeb Swain Vs State of Odisha

Bandana Samal Vs State of Odisha

Sukanti Naik Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division Berhampur, Ganjam

Gajendra Kumar Singh Vs the General Manager, Hingula Area, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (Mcl), Angul

State of Odisha Vs Abhimanyu Mishra