Dismissed¶23

Shyam Sogodia @ Shyam Sagadia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 May 2025WP(C)/9698/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court, Cuttack; WP(C) No.9698 of 2025; Shyam Sogodia @ Shyam Sagadia v. State of Odisha and another; order dated 13.05.2025; writ petition dismissed. Keywords: settlement of land; Gramakantha Paramboke; forest kissam; Hal RoR; sabik RoR not available; District Level Committee report; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad W.P.(C) no.202 of 1995 affidavit; Tahasildar, Rayagada; Annexure-5; earlier writ W.P.(C) no.21511 of 2024, order dated 07.10.2024; Mouza-Rayagada; Ac.0.97 decimals; Plot no.963; advocates A.K. Nanda and Gyanalok Mohanty (Standing Counsel); bench S.K. Sahoo and Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate the flaws in the impugned order passed under Annexure-5. ¶20

Shyam Sogodia @ Shyam Sagadia Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9698 of 2025

¶2

Shyam Sogodia @ Shyam Sagadia

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A.K. Nanda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER

¶10

Order No.

¶11

13.05.2025

¶12

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK Date: 15-May-2025 17:29:19

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shyam Sogodia @ Shyam Sagadia, challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Rayagada, opp. party no.2, under Annexure-5 seeking a further direction to the opp. party no.2 to settle an area of Ac.0.97 decimals bearing vides no.1502, Plot no.963, kissamGramakantha Paramboke of Mouza-Rayagada in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

It appears that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) no.21511 of 2024 with similar prayer and this Court finding that the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

representation at the instance of the petitioner is pending before the opp. party no.2, disposed of the writ petition as per the order dated 07.10.2024 directing the opp. party no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a specified period.

¶19

It appears from the impugned order that the opp. party no.2 after receipt of such order of this Court issued notice and the petitioner was also heard and the opp. party no.2 verified that the Hal RoR of the case land was forest kissam and that the corresponding sabik records are not available and it was found that the land did not find place in the District Level Committee report, which formed the basis for the affidavit filed by the State Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad -vrs.- Union of India and others in W.P.(C) no.202 of 1995 and accordingly, it was held that since the Hal RoR of the case land is forest kissam and the sabik RoR of the case land is not available and the land is being enlisted in the District Level Committee report, the case land cannot be settled in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land in his favour was rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate the flaws in the impugned order passed

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

under Annexure-5 and we are also of the view that since the land has been recorded as forest kissam, the opp. party no.2 is quite justified in refusing the prayer for recording such land in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, we find no merits of the writ petition, which is dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

( S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Rajesh