Kanya Kumari Rao Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kanya Kumari Rao Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order set aside; Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directed to correct the ROR entries and record the land in the petitioner's name within four weeks of production of certified copy of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order at Annexure-3 issued by Opp. Party no.5 should be declared illegal and quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the law in this regard has already been decided by the Division Bench (Narottam Rath, supra, unchallenged per learned State counsel), the writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to correct the entries in the ROR and record the land in the petitioner's name within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.1433 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — Kanya Kumari Rao v. State of Odisha & Others — decided 22.07.2026 by Justice Sashikanta Mishra (single member). The petitioner, a long-standing lessee whose claim to have the land recorded in his favour was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer under a proceeding under the OSS Act, 1958, prayed for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-3 issued by Opp. Party no.5. Counsel (Sephalee Das, Adv.) relied on the recent Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No. 1608 of 2014), which held that Section 3(b) and Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act make elaborate provision for cancelling leases granted under the OGLS Act, while there is no provision under the Settlement Act empowering its authorities to cancel an OGLS lease; learned State counsel (Mr. A.R. Dash, AGA) fairly submitted that the Narottam Rath judgment has not been challenged further. Adopting that settled Division Bench position, the Court allowed the writ application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the entries in the ROR and record the land in the petitioner's name within four weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.1433 of 2026

Kanya Kumari Rao .… Petitioner

Represented by Sephalee Das, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. A.R. Dash, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

22.07.2026

Order No. 02.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

prayer:

“Petitioner therefore most humbly prays that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order at Annexure-3 issued by the Opp. Party no.5 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal;

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute; And/or issue any other order/orders, direction/directions which would offer complete relief to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case;

And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted lease of the land in question a long time ago. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected his claim to record the

Page 1 of 2

land in his favour under a proceeding under the OSS Act, 1958. As such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.

In this context, Ms. Das also relies upon the recent judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narottam Rath V. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C). No. 1608 of 2014) wherein the following was held:-

“8.3 xxx xxx xxx There is ample provision under the OGLS act to cancel a lease granted in favour of a beneficiary Section 3(b) and Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act makes elaborate provisions for cancellation of lease granted under the OGLS Act. There is no provision under the Settlement Act empowering the Authorities created under said Act to cancel a lease granted under the OGLS Act. xxx xxx xxx”

Learned State counsel also fairly submits that the judgment in Narrottam Rath (supra) has not been challenged further.

Since, the law in this regard has already been decided by the division Bench, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to correct the entries in the ROR and record the same in the name of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

(Sashikanta Mishra)

Judge

Pravakar

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Jul-2026 16:07:05

Page 2 of 2