Sarangadhara Tripath Vs State and Ors.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C). NO.8637 OF 2014

¶4

Sarangadhara Tripathy …. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sidharth P. Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

Order No.

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 15.10.2025

¶12

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The matter was once disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated 2^nd January, 2023 along with a batch of writ petitions. The State Government being aggrieved, preferred SLP(C) No.2627 of 2024 along with a batch of SLP(C)s before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said SLP(C)s were disposed of by a common order dated 17^th December, 2024 with a direction as under:

¶15

“ Delay condoned.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that instead of deciding each case individually, on its given fact, the High Court proceeded to club and decide all the matters by presuming the facts to be common/identical and framing a common question of law.

¶17

As such on this short ground alone, the judgment requires interference, we are of the considered view that each case had to be considered on its own merits.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17

¶20

Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 were exercised prior to the finalisation of the Record of Rights or at a subsequent stage was not considered by the High Court. Also as to whether the aggrieved parties had exhausted their remedies as provided under Section 12A and/or Section 158 of the said Act has also not considered by the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that all the petitioners before the Court had leases in their favour, in relation to which no Record of Rights was required to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the said Act.

¶21

As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting on the merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us, we remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.

¶22

We hope and expect that each case would be considered and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated before the High Court.

¶23

The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.1.2025. The parties undertake to fully co-operate in the proceedings before the High Court.

¶24

The Special leave petitions are disposed of as above.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”

¶26

In view of such direction, the writ petition is taken up for consideration on merit.

¶27

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the undated order under Annexure-6 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Rental Conoly, Bhubaneswar in Objection case No.377 of 2012.

¶28

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 21 of the Odisha

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17

¶31

Survey Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity ‘the Act’) to prepare the rent role and record the land in question in his name. But, without considering the grounds taken in the objection and assigning any reason, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar held that the land in question has already been recorded in Government Khata and hence dropped the objection case. It is further submitted that the Petitioner appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and claimed to prepare the rent roll and record of right in his name by filing a written objection. But none of the objection raised by him was taken into consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Rental Conoly, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating the matter. The impugned order under Annexure-6 is an outcome of total nonapplication of mind which is apparent therefrom. Hence, finding no other alternative, this writ petition has been filed.

¶32

Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government submitted that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 22 of the Act to file an Appeal before the Settlement Officer against the order impugned herein. It is stated at the bar that final ROR under Section 12-B of the Act in respect of Sampur mouza, where the land in question situates has not yet been published. It is further submitted that since the Petitioner has not filed any Appeal under Section 22 of the Act, no counter affidavit is required to be filed in this case.

¶33

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is ascertained that the Petitioner has not yet availed the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 22 of the Act against the impugned order under Annexure-6. Further, it is submitted at the Bar that final

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:24:17

¶36

Record of Right under Section 12-B of the Act has not yet been published in respect of Sampur mouza, where the land in question situates.

¶37

Hence, this Court, without delving into the merits of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner files an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Cuttack and Puri Major Settlement, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.5 within a period of two weeks hence, the same shall be considered on its own merit without adhering to the technicality of limitation and otherwise.

¶38

Needless to mention that the concerned parties including the Petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the Settlement Officer in the Appeal, if any filed, within the time stipulated as above and a reasoned order be passed by the Settlement Officer as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the Appeal.

¶39

Interim order dated 16^th May, 2014 passed in Misc. Case No.7848 of 2014 stands vacated.

¶40

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶41

Rojalin

¶42

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Sarangadhara Tripath v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarangadhara Tripath v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narottam Rath Vs State and Anr.

Sk. Shafi Vs State of Odisha

Bhokardhan Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Durga Prasad Dash Vs State and Ors.

Subidha Parua Vs State of Odisha

Sekabat Khan Vs State of Odisha