Salgadia Happy and Holy Home Society, Anantapur, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.Nayak, Additional Standing Counsel (for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3) Mr.Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr.Advocate (for the Third Party Intervener)

¶12

P R E S E N T:

¶13

HONOURABLE

¶14

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶15

Date of Hearing: 16.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 16.07.2025

¶16

WP(C) No.3806 of 2025

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶20

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to dispose of the grievance application dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner pending before him (O.P. No.2) in relation to restoration of possession of the schedule landed properties of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner indicated in Annexure-3 Series and to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period of time.

¶21

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Sr. Counsel for the Third Party Intervener.

¶22

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner is the Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society, which has been represented by its Secretary Mr. Satish Kumar Bacheli, to which, the learned Sr. Counsel for the third party intervener objected contending that,

¶23

WP(C) No.3806 of 2025

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

Mr.Satish Kumar Bacheli is not the Secretary of the Petitioner i.e. Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society, but, Mr.Bikram Jena is the Secretary of Salagadia Happy and Holy Home Society through whose representation, the petition for intervention has been filed.

¶26

4 . The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended for directing the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to dispose of the grievance application dated 20.11.2024 pending before the O.P. No.2, the learned additional standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 did not oppose the same, but, the learned Sr. Counsel for the third party intervener seriously objected/opposed contending that, the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the representation dated 20.11.2024 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2), as the similar nature of representation submitted earlier on behalf of the Petitioner before the O.P. No.2 has already been rejected, for which, the so-called representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner before the O.P. No.2 cannot be taken into consideration by the O.P. No.2 being non-entertainable under law and there is no necessity under law to consider and dispose of the same by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2).

¶27

WP(C) No.3806 of 2025

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

5 . Now, the question arises, whether any

¶30

application/representation of any Party like the representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner pending before the O.P. No.2 is required to be considered and disposed of by the O.P. No.2 or the same is to be kept pending before the O.P. No.2 without being considered?

¶31

6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶32

(i) In a case between Moti Dei Vrs. Cuttack Bank Ltd. and

¶33

others reported in AIR 1964 (Orissa) 185 in Para No.6 that,

¶34

Once a party files an application alleging therein certain matters for consideration, the Court is bound to hear the Party. It is open to the Court to reject the Party’s contention, but, it is not open to the Court to say that, the Party is not entitled to hearing as the identical matter had been decided by a previous order.

¶35

(ii) In a case between Shraban Kumar Agrawalla Vrs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 22 OCR 365 that,

¶36

When, an application is filed before the Court, it would have been appropriate for the Court to accept and register the same as a case by following the provisions laid down in the GRCO and the Cr.P.C. and the Court should not have disposed of that application by making an endorsement on the back of the said application.

¶37

(iii) In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others reported in 2025(3) Civ.C.C. 159 (Allahabad) in Para No.5 that,

¶38

The Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, as his application for mutation has not been registered by the Tahasil Authorities. Time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the mutation

¶39

WP(C) No.3806 of 2025

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

application of the petitioner has yet not been registered. It was informed by the learned Standing Counsel that, in the light of embargo contained in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the application for mutation on the basis of an unregistered will has not been registered.

¶42

The High Court held that, when a person approaches the Court of law or an authority, the said Court of law or an authority cannot refuse to accept the application. It may be different issue, whether the application is maintainable or not, in that case, the Court concerned can consider and pass appropriate orders on the petition, but, a person cannot be stopped from submitting his applications/petitions as that would amount to violation of his right to seek legal redressal.

¶43

7. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, it cannot be held that, the pending representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner cannot be considered and disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division Cuttack (O.P. No.2). For which, in other words, it is held that, the representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner before the O.P. No.2 cannot be kept pending before the O.P. No.2 without being considered as per law.

¶44

8. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed.

¶45

9. The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 20.11.2024 of the Petitioner pending before him (O.P. No.2) independently without being influenced in any manner by the observations made in this Judgment after giving

¶46

WP(C) No.3806 of 2025

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner and the Third Party Intervener of this writ petition and complying the principles of natural justice within a period of one month from the date of communication of this judgment and to intimate the result of the disposal of the said representation to the Petitioner and the Third Party Intervener.

¶49

10 . Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this Judgment to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) immediately.

¶50

11. As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶51

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶52