Allowed¶36

Pradipta Kishore Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Jul 2025WP(C)/7762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025; Ananda Chandra Behera, J.; consolidation; Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003; Commissioner Land Records and Settlement Odisha; record of rights (RoR); finally published RoR and Map; Plot No.67/399 Ac.0.06 decimal; Mouza Bapatapada; Darpana Tahasil; Jajpur; estoppel of consolidation authority; part refusal quashed; remand for fresh decision; Article 226 & 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: the part order refusing recording of Plot No.67/399 in Consolidation Revision No.1547 of 2003 quashed; the revision case remitted back to the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack for a fresh decision confined to Plot No.67/399; petition disposed of finally. ¶36

Pradipta Kishore Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commissioner's refusal to record Plot No.67/399 in the petitioners' names on the grounds that the plot's location could not be found and its L.R. records were not available is sustainable in law, given that the RoR and Map of the plot were finally published by the Consolidation Authorities.

¶26

Court's answer

The grounds relied on for rejecting the prayer in respect of Plot No.67/399 (non-location of the plot and non-availability of its L.R. records) are not sustainable under law, because the RoR and Map of Plot No.67/399 have already been finally published by the Consolidation Authorities.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the RoR and Map were finally published by the Consolidation Authorities themselves, the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement (Opposite Party No.2) was estopped under law from contending that the location of Plot No.67/399 is not available.

¶29

Key takeaways

The identity and location of Plot No.67/399 are well established from the undisputed and unchallenged finally published RoR and Map issued by the department.ratio¶29
As the reasons for refusal have become unsustainable under law, there is justification under law for quashing the portion of the part order in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003 refusing the petitioners' prayer in respect of Plot No.67/399.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 by Pradipta Kishore Mohanty & Others against the part refusal (order dated 03.05.2024, Annexure-5) by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack, in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003, to record Plot No.67/399 (Ac.0.06 decimal, Mouza Bapatapada, Darpana Tahasil, Jajpur) in the petitioners' names, the prayer for Plot No.7 (Ac.0.96 decimal) having been allowed. Refusal rested solely on the plot allegedly not being located and its L.R. records being unavailable. Held: these grounds are unsustainable in law because the RoR and Map of Plot No.67/399 were finally published by the Consolidation Authorities themselves, establishing the plot's identity and location, and the Commissioner was accordingly estopped from pleading non-availability. The part order in respect of Plot No.67/399 was quashed, and Consolidation Revision No.1547 of 2003 was remitted back for a fresh decision confined to that plot in light of the judgment's observations. Petition allowed and disposed of finally (Ananda Chandra Behera, J., 18.07.2025).

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶3

An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India 1950

¶4

¶5

Pradipta Kishore Mohanty & Others

¶6

… Petitioners.

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

State of Odisha & Others

¶9

… Opposite Parties .

¶10

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Narayan Prasad Parija, Adv.

¶12

For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, A.S.C.(For the State)

¶13

P R E S E N T:

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶15

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

Date of Hearing: 18.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 18.07.2025

¶18

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶19

1. This writ petition under Article-226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the part refusal of their prayer in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003 by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) as per its order dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure-5).

¶20

In that Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003, the Petitioners had prayed for recording two plots vide Plot No.7 Ac.0.96 decimal and Plot No.67/399, Ac.0.06 decimal in Mouza- Bapatapada under Darpana Tahasil in the district of Jajpur in their names.

¶21

After hearing, the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) allowed the prayer of the Petitioners in respect of Plot No.7, but, refused their prayer in

¶22

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

respect of Plot No.67/399 on the ground that, Plot No.67/399, Ac.0.06 decimal is not located, because the L.R. records thereof are not available. For which, the Petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the said part refusal to their prayer for recording Plot No.67/399, Ac.0.06 decimals in their names.

¶25

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, as none appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3.

¶26

3. The above grounds i.e. location of Plot No.67/399 and the L.R. records of the same are not available for the rejection/refusal of the prayer of the Petitioners in respect of plot No. 67/399 by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement in Revision Case No.1547 of 2003 cannot be sustainable under law, when the RoR and Map of the said Plot No. 67/399 have already been

¶27

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

published finally by the Consolidation Authorities. Therefore, the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) was estopped under law to say that, the location of Plot No.67/399 is not available. Because, the identity and location of the Plot No.67/399 is well established from the undisputed/unchallenged finally published RoR and Map in respect of plot No.67/399 by their department.

¶30

4. When, the above reasons/grounds of refusal to the prayer of the Petitioners for recording Plot No.67/399 in their names have become unsustainable under law, then, at this juncture, there is justification under law for quashing the part order passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003 concerning the refusal to the prayer of the Petitioners in respect of Plot No.67/399 by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2).

¶31

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

Therefore, the above portion/part order passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2003 by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) in respect of plot No.67/399 is to be quashed.

¶34

5. Hence, this writ petition filed by the

¶35

petitioners is allowed.

¶36

The part order passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.1547 of 2023 by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in respect of Plot No.67/399 against the petitioners is quashed.

¶37

6. The matter i.e. Consolidation Revision No.1547 of 2003 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) to decide the claim of the Petitioners afresh only in respect of Plot No.67/399 on the basis of the observations made in this judgment.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.7762 of 2025

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶41

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶42

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 18 .07. 2025// Sarbani Dash Jr. Stenographer

¶43

Signature Not Verified