Allowed

Bholanath Sahu v. Tahasildar , Attabira, Baragarh

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/16592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa held that the Member, Board of Revenue failed to consider the explanation for delay submitted by the petitioners under Paragraph 4 of their revision petition. The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the revision for delay and remitted the matter toepass a reasoned order on the limitation aspect.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the revision on grounds of delay is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Member, Board of Revenue to consider the limitation aspect afresh by passing a reasoned order.

Bholanath Sahu Vs Tahasildar , Attabira, Baragarh — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16592 of 2026 ODHC010387372026

¶3

Bholanath Sahu and ..... Petitioners

¶4

others

¶5

Represented by Mr.J. Dash, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Tahasildar, Attabira and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by

¶8

Mr. G. Mohanty, S.C.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

10.9.2026.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

The Petitioners preferred O.L.R. Revision Case No.1/2024 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha. Such revision was admittedly preferred after long delay. The delay was

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

sought to be explained under Paragraph-4 of the revision petition. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, however rejected the revision on the ground of delay by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2013) 14 SCC 81. After referring to such judgment, it was abruptly held that no satisfactory cause is shown to justify the delay in filing the revision, which remains unexplained and uncondoned. Obviously, the learned Member has not referred to the explanation submitted under Paragraph-4 of the Revision Petition. It cannot be said that no explanation was submitted. Whether such explanation is acceptable or not is a different matter. This Court is of the considered view that it was open to the learned Member to consider the explanation so submitted and pass a reasoned order.

¶19

In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Member Board of Revenue to consider the limitation aspect afresh by passing a reasoned order.

¶20

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶21

AKB Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:04:11

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Bholanath Sahu v. Tahasildar , Attabira, Baragarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholanath Sahu v. Tahasildar , Attabira, Baragarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases