Sabitri Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sabitri Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances, if permissible under law; interim order dated 03.03.2020 in I.A. No. 3155 of 2020 vacated; urgent certified copy on proper application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order dated 27.08.2018 passed in Misc Case No.34/2017 arising out of O.E.A Claim Case No.34/1990 (Annexure-7) should be quashed (prayed via Rule NISI in the nature of certiorari). +3 more

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with an observation that the Petitioners, if so advised, may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if it is permissible under law.

Key takeaways

The interim order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed in I.A. No. 3155 of 2020 stands vacated.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

In W.P.(C) No. 388 of 2020 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.; order dated 22.08.2025), nine petitioners had prayed for a Rule NISI in the nature of certiorari to quash the Order dated 27.08.2018 passed in Misc Case No.34/2017 arising out of O.E.A Claim Case No.34/1990 (Annexure-7), for declarations that the Order dated 08.05.2017 passed by Opposite Party No.2 in that claim case was not applicable to them, that Opposite Party No.2 lacked jurisdiction over the property, and that the ROR in respect of the property popularly known as Satya Sambhu Bhawan, transferred in favour of Opposite Party No.3 (identified in the order as Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri), was invalid and without jurisdiction. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo of withdrawal with affidavit seeking liberty to approach the appropriate forum; counsel for Opposite Party No.3 and the Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 raised no objection. The Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum if permissible under law, and vacated the interim order dated 03.03.2020 passed in I.A. No. 3155 of 2020. No issue on merits was decided; none of the pleaded questions was adjudicated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 388 of 2020

1(a). Sabitri Sahoo 1(b). Harapriya Sahoo 1(c) Jhulamani Sahoo 1(d) Jayalaxmi Sahoo 1(e) Mamata Sahoo 1(f) Sambhunath Sahoo 1(g) Subhalaxmi Sahoo 1(h) Supriya Priyadarshini Sahoo 1(i) Smruti Subhadarshini Sahoo ….. Petitioners Mr. I.A. Acharya, Advocate

-versus-

1. State of Odisha, represented through the Collector, Puri 2. The Tahasildar, Puri 3. Lord Shree Jagannath Mahapravu at Temple of Puri represented through the Managing Committee ….. Opp. Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, A.S.C. (for O.P. Nos. 1 and 2) Mr. A.C. Swain, Advocate (for O.P. No.3)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

22.08.2025

Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

1. 1. Petitioners in this writ petition pray for the following relief:-

“In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI in the nature of certiorari and /or any other appropriate writ/writs, call for records, call upon

Page 1 of 3

the 0pp. Parties to show cause as to why the Order dated 27.08.2018 passed in Misc Case No.34 /20I7 arising out of O.E.A Claim Case No.34/1990 vide Annexure -7 shall not be quashed;

And why it should not be declared that the Order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the 0pp. No.2 in O.E.A Claim Case No.34/1990 is not applicable to the petitioners;

And further why it should not be declared that the 0pp. Party No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass any orders with respect to the property in the said manner;

And why it should not be declared that the ROR of the petitioners in respect of the property popularly known and identified as Satya Sambhu Bhawan transferred in favour of the Opp Party No.3 invalid and without jurisdiction;

And /or pass such further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper and allow this writ application with cost;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

Mr. I.A. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner along with affidavit. He, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances of the Petitioners.

Mr. A.C. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.3 – Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri and Mr.

Page 2 of 3

Manmaya Kumar Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 do not have any objection to such prayer.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with an observation that the Petitioners, if so advised, may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if it is permissible under law.

Interim order dated 3^rd March, 2020 passed in I.A. No. 3155 of 2020 stands vacated.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Sukanta

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:32:01

Page 3 of 3