Kunja Bihari Pal Vs Sarapanch,Jarada Gram Panchayat — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kunja Bihari Pal Vs Sarapanch,Jarada Gram Panchayat — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review application allowed and judgment of 18.11.2021 in R.S.A No.380/2003 modified (not recalled in its entirety): the decree in T.S. No.5/1993 by the Court below shall apply only to Plot No.1954 (suit tank), excluding Plot No.1955 (Ac.0.41 decs.) and the non-plotted area of Ac.0.82 decs. south of Plot No.1954; Review Application disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the description of the suit property in para-10 of this Court's judgment of 18.11.2021 in R.S.A No.380/2003 is erroneous and not in conformity with the suit schedule property, warranting review of the judgment. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the misdescription constitutes an error of record apparent on the face of para-10, the Court holds the judgment needs review; the review application is allowed, but instead of recalling the judgment in its entirety, the relevant observations therein can be modified suitably.

Ratio / Principle

The decree passed in favour of the review petitioner (Defendant No.1) in the earlier suit T.S. No.12/1986 having attained finality, it was not open to the Court below to have forayed into that decreed area again; this aspect was not considered in the proper perspective by this Court while deciding the Second Appeal, which is apparent from the observations in para-10.

Key takeaways

The claim of the review petitioner over Plot No.1955 (Ac.0.41 decs.) and the non-plotted land (Ac.0.82 decs.) to the south of Plot No.1954 cannot be included within the property forming the subject matter of the subsequent suit (T.S. No.5/1993) filed by the Grama Panchayat; both the properties are distinct and separate, and this distinction was evidently not considered in the proper perspective while disposing of the Second Appeal.ratio¶29
The judgment of this Court passed on 18.11.2021 is modified to the extent that the decree passed in T.S. No.5/1993 by the Court below shall be applicable only to Plot No.1954 (suit tank) and not to Plot No.1955 measuring 0.41 decs. or the non-plotted area measuring Ac.0.82 decs. to the south of Plot No.1954.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition RVWPET No.12/2022 (Orissa HC, Sashikanta Mishra J., order dated 27.7.2026) sought review of this Court's judgment of 18.11.2021 in R.S.A No.380/2003 on the ground that para-10 misdescribed the property as 'suit land', whereas the review petitioner (defendant No.1 in the court below) was interested in the 'suit tank and embankment' and in non-plotted land south of Plot No.1954. Counsel on both sides conceded the misdescription. Examining the record, the Court found that Defendant No.1 (Udayanath Pal) had obtained a decree in T.S. No.12/1986 (Addl. Munsif, Hindol) over Plot No.1955 'Adi' (Ac.0.41 decs.) and non-plotted land (Ac.0.82 decs.) south of Plot No.1954; that decree stood final, yet the Grama Panchayat's subsequent declaratory suit T.S. No.5/1993 wrongly drew that decreed property into its claim - an aspect overlooked while deciding the Second Appeal. Treating the slip as an apparent error of record, the Court allowed the review and, without recalling the judgment wholesale, modified it: the decree of T.S. No.5/1993 now operates only over Plot No.1954 (suit tank), ceasing to cover Plot No.1955 and the adjoining non-plotted area. The Grama Sabha's resolution of 26.1.2026 relinquishing the Panchayat's claim over the decreed property was placed on record; a pending compromise petition remains to be dealt with, if need be.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.12 of 2022

Kunja Bihari Pal and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. -versus- Sarpanch, Jarada Gram ..... Opp. Party Panchaya, Dhenkanal Represented by Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

Order No.

14

ORDER 27.7.2026.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party files an affidavit of the Sarpanch, Jarada Grama Panchayat enclosing affidavits of some other persons and a copy of the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha of Jarada Grama Panchayat on 26.1.2026. The same be kept on record. This Court is of the view that since there is some dispute with regard to the compromise, it would be better to hear the review application on merit at the first instance before dealing with the

Page 1 of 6

// 2 //

compromise petition, if need be. Both parties agree to this proposition. As such the review application is heard.

Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior counsel with Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Review Petitioners and Mr. A.P.Bose, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

The review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 18.11.2021 in R.S.A No.380/2003. It is stated that the description of the suit property in para-10 of the judgment is erroneous and not in conformity with the suit schedule property.

Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel draws attention of this Court to the observations made in para-10 to submit that the description of the property as ‘suit land’ occurring in the said paragraph is wrong as it ought to have been ‘suit tank and embankment’ as has been mentioned in the subsequent sentence. The review petitioner being defendant No.1 in the Court below is interested only in the embankment and has no claim over the suit tank as such. It is further submitted that apart from the embankment, non-plotted land to the south of Plot No.1954 to the extent of Ac.0.82 dec. is also claimed by the review petitioner (Defendant No.1), which has already been decided in his favour by the Court below.

Page 2 of 6

// 3 //

Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party (Plaintiff) fairly submits that the property has been misdescribed in the order sought to be reviewed and has the effect of creating confusion. He further clarifies that in so far as the Grama Panchayat is concerned, its interest is confined only to the tank whereas the petitioner’s case relates to the embankment and the non-plotted area measuring Ac.0.82 dec.

Before considering the merits of the rival contentions, this Court deems it proper to reproduce Para-10 of the judgment: -

“Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully gone through the judgments passed by the courts below. Admittedly, the first round litigation had been initiated by the Defendant in claiming the right, title, interest and possession over the suit tank. This relief initially sought for had been later on amended in claiming the exclusive right of user of water for irrigation etc. That suit being dismissed by the Trial Court, the result had been confirmed in the First Appeal carried by this Defendant and thereafter this Court in the Second Appeal filed by this Defendant refused to interfere with the same. So there was no occasion for the Defendant. to initiate the second round of civil litigation concerning the suit land in twisting the facts and modulating description as his right over the suit tank and embankment in any manner stood negated putting all the controversies at rest. The property having been vested with the, PlaintiffPanchayat, the suit had been filed without making

Page 3 of 6

// 4 //

Panchayat a party. So it goes without saying that the said judgment and decree as passed are not binding on the Plaintiff. Panchayat and in so far as the PlaintiffPanchayat is concerned said judgment and decree has no effect and they-being the absolute owner, the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.12 of 1986 is to be held as null and void and the original Defendant nor his legal representatives cannot be said to have derived any right whatsoever over the suit tank and embankment. These mischiefs being apparent, the courts below have rightly declared the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 12 of 1986 as null and void in saving the public property from being grabbed by the Defendants. This Court without any hesitation thus rejects the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants.”

It is seen that in the 11^th sentence of this paragraph, the property has been described as ‘suit land’. In this context, this Court takes note of the fact that the Defendant No.1-Udayanath Pal had filed T.S. No.12/1986 in the Court of Addl. Munsif, Hindol claiming title over Plot No.1955 ‘Adi’ having area of Ac.0.41 decs. and non-plotted area to the south of Plot No.1954 measuring Ac.0.82 decs. The suit was decreed in respect of the above two plots. The decree has become final in view of no challenge being posed to it by any of the parties till date. However, in the suit subsequently filed by the Grama Panchayat, being T.S. No.5/1993 for declaration, the aforementioned property decreed in favour of the review

Page 4 of 6

// 5 //

petitioner (Defendant No.1) was wrongly included in the claim of the Grama Panchayat. Obviously, the decree passed in favour of the review petitioner (Defendant No.1) in the earlier suit (T.S. No.12/1986) having attained finality, it was not open to the Court below to have forayed into the said area again. This aspect does not appear to have been considered in the proper perspective by this Court while deciding the Second Appeal, which is apparent from the observations made in para10 quoted above. Additionally, Mr. Bose learned counsel for the opposite party fairly submits that all the members of the Grama Panchayat have passed a resolution by majority relinquishing any claim over the property decreed in favour of the review petitioner in the earlier suit (T.S. No.12/1986). It is also submitted that the resolution was passed in a duly constituted Grama Sabha.

Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the claim of the review petitioner over the property i.e. Plot No.1955 measuring an area of Ac.0.41 decs and the non-plotted land measuring Ac.0.82 decs. to the south of Plot No.1954 cannot be included within the property forming the subject matter of the subsequent suit filed by the Grama Panchayat. Both the properties are distinct and separate. Evidently, this distinction was not considered in the proper perspective by this Court while disposing of the Second Appeal. Since this is an error of record, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment needs to be reviewed. The

Page 5 of 6

// 6 //

review application is therefore, allowed. However, instead of recalling the judgment in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the relevant observations therein can be modified suitably.

The judgment of this Court passed on 18.11.2021 is modified to the extent that the decree passed in T.S. No.5/1993 by the Court below shall be applicable only to Plot No.1954 (suit tank) and not Plot No.1955 measuring 0.41 decs. and the non-plotted area measuring Ac.0.82 decs. to the south of Plot No.1954.

The Review Application is disposed of accordingly.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

AKB

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 29-Jul-2026 11:02:43

Page 6 of 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed by this Court in R.S.A No.380/2003 (Second Appeal), whose para-10 misdescribes the property as 'suit land' contrary to the suit schedule, and which is sought to be reviewed.¶15
This Court (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack) · 2021-11-18
Prior proceeding
First round litigation initiated by the Defendant claiming right, title, interest and possession over the suit tank, later amended to claim exclusive right of user of water for irrigation (as reproduced from para-10 of the judgment of 18.11.2021).¶21
Prior proceeding
That first-round suit was dismissed by the Trial Court; the result was confirmed in the First Appeal carried by the Defendant, and thereafter this Court, in the Second Appeal filed by the Defendant, refused to interfere (as reproduced from para-10 of the judgment of 18.11.2021).¶21
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1-Udayanath Pal filed T.S. No.12/1986 in the Court of Addl. Munsif, Hindol claiming title over Plot No.1955 'Adi' (Ac.0.41 decs.) and non-plotted area south of Plot No.1954 (Ac.0.82 decs.).¶25
Prior proceeding
T.S. No.12/1986 was decreed in respect of the two claimed parcels and the decree has become final, no party having challenged it till date.¶25
Prior proceeding
Subsequently the Grama Panchayat filed T.S. No.5/1993 for declaration, in which the property decreed in favour of Defendant No.1 in T.S. No.12/1986 was wrongly included in the Panchayat's claim.¶28
Prior proceeding
Members of the Grama Panchayat, in a duly constituted Grama Sabha, passed a resolution by majority (copy dated 26.1.2026, filed through the Sarpanch's affidavit) relinquishing any claim over the property decreed to the review petitioner in T.S. No.12/1986.¶28
Prior proceeding
A compromise petition exists before the Court; because of some dispute regarding the compromise, the Court resolved to hear the review application on merit first, and both parties agreed; the review application was thereupon heard.¶13