Disposed¶21

Usha Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Jul 2026WP(C)/18427/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Usha Patnaik v. State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No.18427 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Sashikanta Mishra; order dated 13.07.2026; Mutation Case No. 5488/2025; impugned order 21.08.2025; ROR; Annexure-5; Annexure-3; Annexure-2; order dated 11.03.2025; Pattadar to Stitiban; Addl. Tahasildar Bhubaneswar; Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026; disposed with direction; six weeks; certified copy; hybrid mode.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the petitioner's prayer in light of the judgment in Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026) and take a decision within six weeks of production of certified copy; no direct quashing of the impugned order or ROR was granted by this Court. ¶21

Usha Patnaik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 in Mutation Case No. 5488/2025 and the consequential ROR, and restoration of 'Stitiban' recording, should be disposed of in light of the Court's judgment in Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026).

¶21

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the petitioner's prayer in light of the Court's recent judgment in Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026).

¶21

Ratio / Principle

A decision on the petitioner's prayer shall be taken within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.18427 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Sashikanta Mishra, order dated 13.07.2026): Usha Patnaik sought quashing of the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Mutation Case No. 5488/2025 (Annexure-5) and the Record of Right (ROR) prepared in pursuance thereof (Annexure-3), and a direction to record the scheduled plot as 'Stitiban' in her name as it stood prior to the order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure-2). Counsel stated at the bar that the case was covered by the Court's recent judgment in Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026) & Batch. Without independently adjudicating the mutation dispute, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the petitioner's prayer in light of that judgment, with a decision to be taken within six weeks from production of certified copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18427 of 2026

¶2

Usha Patnaik

¶3

.… Petitioner Represented by Ms. B.Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and Ors .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.S.Routray, ASC

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

13.07.2026

Order No. 02.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶12

prayer:-

¶13

“That, therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the Petition, admit this writ application, Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Mutation Case No. 5488/2025 under Annexure-5 and the Record of Right (ROR) prepared in pursuance to the impugned order under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed.

¶14

And if the opposite parties fail to show insufficient cause, the said RULR be made absolute by quashing the impugned order under Annexure-5

¶15

And pass an order directing the Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5 to record the scheduled plot by correcting the same from “Pattadar’ to “Stitiban” status in the name of the petitioner as it was recorded prior to passing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 under Annexure-2. And to pass Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances placed.

¶16

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall be duty bound ever pray.”

¶17

It is stated at the bar that the case of the petitioner is covered

¶18

by the judgment rendered by this Court recently in the case of

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Gargi Dash v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026) & Batch.

¶21

Considering the submissions as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the prayer of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned judgment of this Court. A decision in this regard shall be taken within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶22

(Sashikanta Mishra)

¶23

Judge

¶24

Deepak

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2026 19:01:12

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Usha Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Archana Bisoyi Vs the Tahasildar, Jatani

Manasi Bishoyi Vs the Tahasildar, Jatani

Debasish Sarkar Vs the Addl.Commissioner, Revision Court NO.4, Bhubaneswar

Basanta Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Geetanjali Satapathy Vs State of Odisha