Disposed

Gitanjali Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Dec 2025WP(C)/34484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enforcement of a Member, Board of Revenue order directing a Tahasildar to implement it. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that the High Court is not an executing forum of superior authorities' directions, the court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to approach the Board of Revenue and, on non-response, return to the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to seek implementation of OSS Case No.517/2018 from Member, Board of Revenue; may approach High Court again if no response.

Gitanjali Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.34484 of 2025

¶3

(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

¶4

Gitanjali Mohanty …. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

¶9

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

¶10

For Petitioner - Mr. S Radhakrishanan, Advocate.

¶11

For Opposite Parties - Mr. T. Kumar, Learned Additional Sanding Counsel

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

¶13

Date of Hearing :19.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :19.12.2025

¶14

A.C. Behera, J . This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶15

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3) in the district of Khurda for the implementation of the final order dated 12.06.2025 passed in OSS Revision Case Vide OSS Case No.517 of 2018 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2). Because, the direction, which was given by the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) in OSS Revision Case Vide OSS

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Case No.517 of 2018 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party

¶18

No.3) for implementation of the same, as the same has not been implementation till yet.

¶19

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

¶20

3. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in a case between Jayamma and others

¶21

vrs. The Dy. Commr. Hassan Dist. Hassan and others : reported in

¶22

2013(3) Civil Law Times-94 that,

¶23

“ 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.”

¶24

4 . In view of the propositions of law enunciated by the Apex Court in 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 sub-ordinate officer, to whom, the direction was given for implementation, but, his direction cannot be implemented by the High Court. Because, High Court is not the executing forum to execute the

¶25

directions/orders passed by the Superior Officers of the Government.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

5 . So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of

¶28

the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to this matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority, i.e., Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2), who had passed the order on dated 12.06.2025 in OSS Revision Case Vide OSS Case No.517 of 2018 by filing an application for its proper implementation by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3), annexing the certified copy of this judgment and in case of non-response to the same by the Opposite Party No.2, the petitioner can approach the High Court seeking appropriate relief for such non-response of the Opposite Party No.2 for implementation of its own order passed in OSS No.517 of 2018.

¶29

6. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ

¶30

petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶31

(A.C. Behera), Judge

¶32

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶33

The 19^th of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 20-Dec-2025 11:35:25

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Gitanjali Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitanjali Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Sankar Lenka Vs Surya Kumar Nayak,Tahasildar,Bhograi,Balasore

Charulata Das Vs State of Odisha

Appaya Kulesika Vs State of Odisha

Priyabrata Amiya Ranjan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Suruchi Sahoo Vs State of Odisha