Gantasethy Rama Rao Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.248 of 2024, W.P.(C) Nos.41475, 41476, 41479 , 42144, 42146, 42149 , 42863, 42867, 42869 of 2023, W.P.(C) Nos.216, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 1676, 1693, 1697, 1702, 1705, 1776, 1798, 1802, 1804 & 1690 of 2024

¶3

(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

¶4

W.P.(C) No.248 of 2024

¶5

Gantasethy Rama Rao ..... Petitioner Represented By Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for O.P. No.4 W.P.(C) No.41475 of 2023 K. Tripati Patra Represented By Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for O.P. No.4 W.P.(C) No.41476 of 2023 Chinam Geetanjali Patro @ Ch. Represented By Geetanjali Patro Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for O.P. No.4

¶6

Page 1 of 17

¶7

W.P.(C) No.41479 of 2023 Parmod Kumar Agarwal Represented By Mr. B. R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate. for O.P. No.4 W.P.(C) No.42144 of 2023 Kusum Agrawal Represented By Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- Punei Hontal @ Girem and ..... Opposite Parties others Represented By Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel W.P.(C) No.42146 of 2023 Sricharan Padhiary Represented By Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- Punei Hontal @ Girem and ..... Opposite Parties others Represented By Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel W.P.(C) No.42149 of 2023 Partha Sarathi Rout Represented By Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- Punei Hontal @ Girem and ..... Opposite Parties others

¶8

Page 2 of 17

¶9

Represented By Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel W.P.(C) No.42863 of 2023 Mami Pattanaik Represented By Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate & Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate. -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.6 W.P.(C) No.42867 of 2023 Sangita Debi Represented By Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate & Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.6 W.P.(C) No.42869 of 2023 Nikhila Bharati Bishoyi Represented By Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate & Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.6

¶10

Page 3 of 17

¶11

W.P.(C) No.216 of 2024 Gantasethy Joga Rao Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.242 of 2024 Maheswar Choudhury Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.243 of 2024 Purnabasi Sahoo Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.244 of 2024 Bansidhar Nayak Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties

¶12

Page 4 of 17

¶13

Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2024 Debahari Pradhan Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.246 of 2024 Namita Pradhan Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.247 of 2024 Gantasethy Prakash Represented By Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4

¶14

Page 5 of 17

¶15

W.P.(C) No.1676 of 2024

¶16

Balakrishna Maharana Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1693 of 2024 Lambadhar Sahu @ Lambodhar Represented By Sahu Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1697 of 2024 Ranjit Kumar Patnaik Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1702 of 2024 Epili Niranjan Senapati Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties

¶17

Page 6 of 17

¶18

Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1705 of 2024 Sunyabashi Biswal Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1776 of 2024 Prakash Padhiary Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1798 of 2024 Raju Sahu Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1802 of 2024 Anjali Devi Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus-

¶19

Page 7 of 17

¶20

State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1804 of 2024 Geetanjali Moharana Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 W.P.(C) No.1690 of 2024 Sanjukta Sahu Represented By Mr. D. Panigrahy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

¶22

Date of Hearing of all the Writ Petitions except W.P.(C) No.1690 of 2024::30.10.2025 :: Date of Hearing of W.P.(C) No.1690 of 2024::07.11.2025

¶23

:: ::

¶24

Date of Judgment of all the Writ Petitions :21.11.2025

¶25

A.C. Behera, J . Since all these 27 numbers of writ petitions have arisen

¶26

out of one case vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 under Section 3-A of The

¶27

Page 8 of 17

¶28

Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956, then all the writ petitions are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment.

¶29

2 . The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput stating in their respective writ petitions that, much prior to the passing of the above impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners), separate R.o.Rs in respect of their purchased portions from the case land were prepared in their names as per the orders passed in different mutation cases on the basis of their respective purchased deeds (sale deeds), but still then, the above impugned orders in the above OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 were passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners) without impleading them (petitioners) as parties in the said OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 and without giving any opportunity to them (petitioners) of hearing in the said case, though, they (petitioners) were entitled under law to get opportunity of hearing in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput before passing the impugned orders against them (petitioners) in respect of their recorded lands.

¶30

For which, they (petitioners) challenged the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 against them by filing these writ petitions praying for quashing the said impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.

¶31

Page 9 of 17

¶32

3 . I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions one after another separately and learned counsel for Punei Hontal @ Girem (petitioner in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022) and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶33

4 . During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for the petitioners contended that, the above impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 (those are under challenge) cannot be sustainable under law and the same are liable to be quashed by interfering with the same through these writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 filed by them (petitioners) on the ground that, the impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 have been passed violating the principles of natural justice i.e. for nonproviding of any opportunity of being heard to them (petitioners) in spite of the preparation of the R.o.Rs of the case land in their names as per the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases in their favour. The petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the case land for value through separate registered sale deeds and they are the owners and in possession over their respective purchased land from Sabik Plot No.437. For which, the impugned orders should not have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 without impleading them (petitioners) as parties and without giving them (petitioners) any opportunity of being heard.

¶34

To which, the learned counsel for Punei Hontal @ Girem and the learned Standing Counsel for the State objected contending that, the impugned orders

¶35

Page 10 of 17

¶36

have been passed as per law according to the provisions under Section 3(3) of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956. For which, the said impugned orders cannot be challenged through these writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Because, the same were challengeable before the statutory appellate forum under Section 3(3) of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956. Therefore, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable under law.

¶37

5 . It appears from the impugned orders (those are under challenge) that, none of the petitioners has been impleaded as party in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 before the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput and they (petitioners) were also not noticed in that OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.

¶38

As such, the petitioners were not provided with any opportunity of being heard in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 before the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.

¶39

6 . It is the undisputed case of the parties that, much prior to the passing of the impugned orders by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 in respect of the case lands vide CS Plot No.437 under Khata No.38, separate R.o.Rs in respect of the purchased portions of the petitioners from that Plot No.437 were prepared in their names i.e. in the name of petitioners on the basis of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases.

¶40

Page 11 of 17

¶41

7 . The law relating to the providing of opportunity of hearing to persons

¶42

required under law in the like nature cases, has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶43

(i) In a case between Ashim Ranjan Das (d) by LRs Vrs Shibu Bodhak and Ors. reported in 2018 (2) CCC (SC) 2 & 2018 (2) CLR (SC) 178 that, order passed without impleading the necessary party, in whose name R.o.R. stands, and without giving opportunity of being heard to him is not sustainable under law. The said matter is required to be remanded back for its fresh hearing after giving opportunity of being heard to the person whose name R.o.R stands.

¶44

(ii) In a case between Nilakamal Das and Others Vrs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in J.B.R. Vol. XV (1978) Part IV 55 (DB) that, parties concerned would not necessarily mean those who had been contesting the particulars in the record-of-rights before the Settlement authorities. Any person who would be affected by the direction of the Commissioner would be entitled to a hearing.

¶45

(iii) In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath and others Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and Others reported in 1989 (2) OLR 135 that,

¶46

persons whose interests are likely to be affected are not made parties in the revision, still then, the Revision was allowed. When the petitioners who claim title to the disputed land having not been impleaded and when they are praying for hearing of the revision afresh, then it would be a fit case to re-open the matter to comply with the requirements of the principles of natural justice. For which, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits.

¶47

8 . Section 3-A(1) of the Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 provides that,

¶48

Page 12 of 17

¶49

“necessary orders shall be passed under the said Section for ejectment and restoration of possession in favour of the applicant only after giving parties concerned an opportunity of being heard.”

¶50

9 . Here in these matters at hand, when it is the claim of the petitioners that,

¶51

they (petitioners) are in separate possession over the case land to the extent of their respective purchased areas on the basis of separate sale deeds and separate R.o.Rs in respect of their purchased portions from the case land have already been prepared in their names on the basis of the separate orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases and when Section 3-A(1) of The Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 provides that, an order for ejectment, eviction and restoration of possession can be passed only after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard and when it has already been clarified in the ratio of the above decisions that, any person, who would be affected by the direction of the Court or Authority in any case or proceeding, the said person should be

¶52

given opportunity of being heard in order to comply the requirements of the principles of natural justice and when, in these matters at hand, the petitioners are stating that, they are seriously affected and prejudiced by the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 on account of their nonimpleadment as parties in the said OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and the provisions of law envisaged in Section 3-A(1) of the Orissa Regulation 2, 1956 to these matters at hand, it is held that, the impugned

¶53

Page 13 of 17

¶54

orders have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 in contravention to the principles of natural justice.

¶55

10 . The law relating to the maintainability of a writ petition, despite availability of an alternative remedy to challenge the same has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶56

(I) In a case between Whirlpool Corporation vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks : reported in (1998) 8 SCC-1 that,

¶57

Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases:-

¶58

(a) Where principles of natural justice are breached .

¶59

(b) Where fundamental rights are sought to be enforced or breach thereof is complained of

¶60

(c) Where the impugned order is passed by an authority without justification.

¶61

(d) Where the Constitutionality of any provision is called in question.

¶62

(II) In a case between The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vrs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited : reported in (2022) 16 SCC447 that,

¶63

Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases :-

¶64

(i) An access of jurisdiction.

¶65

(ii) A breach of fundamental rights.

¶66

(iii) A violation of the principles of natural justice .

¶67

(iv) A challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

¶68

Page 14 of 17

¶69

(III) In a case between Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (SOUTHCO) and another Vrs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in 2012 (2) SCC 108 that,

¶70

if exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal ex facie appears to be an exercise of jurisdiction in futility for any of the stated reasons, then it will be permissible for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction.

¶71

(IV) In a case between Maharashtra Chess Association Vrs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 285 that,

¶72

existence of an alternative remedy does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

¶73

(V) In a case between Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta Vrs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (UP) and others reported in AIR 1987 (SC) 2186 that,

¶74

an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, when an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. (Para 12)

¶75

(VI) In a case between Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar Vrs. State of Orissa, others and Deepak Kumar Panda Vrs. State of Orissa and others and Pratap Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others passed in W.P.(C) No.8774 & 9010 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.20178 of 2020 (Orissa),

¶76

writ Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority, when it acts in a manner not recognized under law. (Para 30)

¶77

11 . As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held above that, the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR),

¶78

Koraput in contravention to the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture,

¶79

Page 15 of 17

¶80

it cannot be held that, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the impugned orders are not maintainable under law.

¶81

For which, in other words, it is held that, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput are maintainable under law.

¶82

12 . When, it is held above that, the petitioners have suffered serious injustice by the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput on account of their non-impleadment as parties in the said OSATIP Case in respect of the case land, then at this juncture, the impugned orders passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput cannot be sustainable under law.

¶83

For which, the matter vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 is required to be remitted back to the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput for deciding the same afresh as per law after impleading the petitioners as parties in the said OSATIP Case and to dispose of the same as per law providing opportunity of being heard to all the parties thereof including the petitioners of these writ petitions.

¶84

So, for the reasons assigned above, there is merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The same are to be allowed.

¶85

13 . In result, all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed on contest.

¶86

Page 16 of 17

¶87

The impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively

¶88

passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput are quashed.

¶89

The matter i.e. OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 is remitted back to the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput for deciding the same afresh as per law after impleading the petitioners as O.Ps in the said case and to dispose of the same as per law as expeditiously as possible providing opportunity of being heard to all the parties thereof in full compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶90

The parties in these writ petitions are directed to appear before the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput as to further proceedings of the OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022.

¶91

14 . As such, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of finally.

¶92

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

¶93

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 21.11.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer

¶94

Signature Not Verified

¶95

Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Nov-2025 12:59:49

¶96

Page 17 of 17

Gantasethy Rama Rao v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gantasethy Rama Rao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prachyasuman Mohanty Vs Pratima Mohanty

Aliya Begam Vs State of Odisha

Sachidananda Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Subash Ch.Bihari Vs Keshab Ch.Pagala

Namita Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha