Dismissed¶30

Dinabandhu Patel v. State of Odisha

Writ Appeal – Maintainability

Orissa HC18 Mar 2026WA/372/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ appeal; intra-court appeal against Article 227 order not maintainable; Article 226 vs Article 227; Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement AIR 2009 SC 713; Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act Section 12; Encroachment Case No. 139 of 2019; Encroachment Case No. 38 of 1996; Encroachment Appeal No. 01 of 2021; Tahasildar Ambabhona; Sub-Collector Bargarh; claim of land settlement in exchange for donation of land for road construction; eviction from encroached land.

What did the court decide?

Where an order is passed by a learned Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-Court appeal is maintainable. ¶25

Dinabandhu Patel Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.372 of 2021

¶3

Dinabandhu Patel

¶4

…. Appellant(s)

¶5

Represented by Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate -Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others …. Respondent(s)

¶7

Represented by Adv. Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶10

AND

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

06.

18.03.2026 (Hybrid mode)

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present dispute is arising out of the claim of the appellant for settlement of the land in subject. He submitted that his father in the year 1979 had donated a piece of land to the Government for construction of the road and in exchange of that; he has been in possession of the land in subject. An encroachment case being Encroachment Case No. 139 of 2019 has been initiated for eviction of the appellant from the said land. Besides that, Encroachment Case No. 38 of 1996, was also initiated earlier. In both the proceedings, the appellant contended that the land in question is liable to be settled in his name, as his father had donated a piece of land

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

for construction of road in exchange. The said exchange theory put forth by the appellant did not find favour from the authority concerned. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Ambabhona vide his order dated 03.03.2020 refused to entertain his application and directed for eviction from the encroached land. The said order dated 03.03.2020 was assailed by the appellant by filing an appeal under Section 12 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The Encroachment Appeal No. 01 of 2021 filed by the appellant was turned down by the SubCollector, Bargarh, vide its order dated 29.01.2021 and 10.03.2021. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing both the orders dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Ambabhona, which has been upheld by the SubCollector, Bargarh, vide its order dated 10.03.2021. The said writ petition has been turned down by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23.03.2021. Hence, the present writ appeal.

¶19

3. When the matter was taken up on 25.04.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following orders:-

¶20

“1. Learned counsel for the Appellant wants to avail of the alternate remedy of a revision. However, this plea was not taken before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition has been dismissed on merits. It is therefore not possible to accede to the above prayer of the Appellant.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant then states that no argue on merits, he needs more time.

¶23

3. List on 27^th July, 2023.”

¶24

4. Subsequently on 27.07.2023, this Court raised the question of maintainability of the writ appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge which appears to have passed while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has been taking time to satisfy the Court regarding the maintainability of the intra court appeal. Today, when the matter was taken up, he could not appropriately answer regarding the maintainability of the writ appeal.

¶25

5. It is well settled principle of law that an order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-Court appeal is maintainable. Although the appellant had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Tahasildar as well as the Sub-Collector, but by the nature of writ sought by the appellant it is abundantly clear that the learned Single Judge has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc. vs. Vikram Cement Etc. , reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 713 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that no intra-Court appeal against the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

exercising Article 227 of the Constitution of India is available. It was held thus:-

¶28

“24. Bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, quoted above, leaves no room for doubt that it allows a party aggrieved by a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court to appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court if a Single Judge has rendered a judgment or passed an order in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Proviso to subsection (1) expressly declares that no such appeal shall lie against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶29

25. It is, therefore, clear that if the order is passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, an intra court appeal would lie. If, on the other hand, a Single Judge exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, intra court appeal would not be competent.”

¶30

6. In view of the foregoing, since we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has excised jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India to dispose of the writ the impugned order, no intra court appeal remedy is available to the appellant to assail the same. Hence we are constrained to dismiss the writ appeal being not maintainable.

¶31

(Manash Ranjan Pathak)

¶32

Judge

¶33

(Sibo Sankar Mishra)

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Judge

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Ashok Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Mar-2026 10:35:33

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Dinabandhu Patel v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinabandhu Patel v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs Late Achyuta Charan Panda

Supreme Task General Hospital and Netraniketan, Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

Dhiren Kumar Pradhan Vs Madhuchhanda Jena

Gokulananda Prusty Vs State of Odissa

Sanghamitra Das Vs Rajiv Ranjan Das

Sudesna Patra Vs Himansu Bhusan Ranasingh