Krushna Ram Behera Vs Collector and Dist.Magistrate, Kalahandi

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for directing the Tahasildar Junagarh in the district of Kalahandi for implementation of the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in S.R.P. No.259 of 2005 by the Joint Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur. Because, the direction, which was given by the Joint Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur in SRP No.209

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

of 2025 to the Tahasildar Junagarh for implementation of the same has not been implemented.

¶18

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶19

3. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in a case between Jayamma and others vrs. The Dy. Commr. Hassan Dist. Hassan and others : reported in

¶20

2013(3) Civil Law Times-94 that,

¶21

“ if a Sub-ordinate authorities in Government does not act in terms of directions or instructions issued by the superior authority, it is not for the High Court to compel that, Sub-ordinate authority to comply with the instructions or directions issued by the superior authority. Because, High Court is not the executing forum of the instructions issued by the Government or superior officers of the Government to their Sub-ordinate Officers, because, it is the duty of the superior officer(who passed the order) to see the implementation of its own order by its Sub-ordinate. The High Court is not the executing forum of instructions/directions issued by the Superior Authority of the Government to its Subordinate Officers. So, it is the duty of the Superior Authority of the Government(who passed the order) to implement his/her own order properly.”

¶22

4 . In view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in

¶23

the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is the duty of the superior officer of the Government to see that, his/her order/direction is implemented by its

¶24

sub-ordinate officer, to whom, the direction was issued for implementation.

¶25

5 . So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is felt proper to dispose of

¶26

this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

authority, i.e., Joint Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation,

¶29

Berhampur, who had passed the order on dated 27.10.2009 in S.R.P. No.259 of 2005 by filing an application for its proper implementation by

¶30

the Tahasildar, Junagarh, annexing the certified copy of this judgment and in case of non-response to the same, the petitioner can approach the

¶31

High Court seeking appropriate relief concerning non-response of his application by Joint Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur.

¶32

6. So, with the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶33

(A.C. Behera), Judge

¶34

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 24^th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 25-Nov-2025 10:26:03

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Krushna Ram Behera v. Collector and Dist.Magistrate, Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna Ram Behera v. Collector and Dist.Magistrate, Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Ch.Bihari Vs Keshab Ch.Pagala

Gantasethy Rama Rao Vs State of Odisha

Namita Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Purnalata Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Pradipta Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sebati Singh Vs State of Odisha