Disposed¶24

Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, South Division, Ganjam

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WP(C)/1915/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.1915 of 2026; Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, Berhampur; OSSARC No.393/2023; order dated 11.6.2025; Sarbasadharan khata; Debastali kisam; Government land; 30 years' possession requirement; question of title beyond revenue authority's competence; civil Court alone competent; declaration of title; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty left open to the Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court seeking necessary declaration of title, if so advised. ¶24

Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner, South Division, Ganjam — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1915 of 2026

¶3

Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali

.....

Petitioner

Represented by

Mr.K.K.Jena, Adv

-versus-

Revenue Divisional, Commissioner, ..... Southern Division, Berhampur and others

¶10

Opposite Parties

¶11

Represented by A.G.A.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

02.2.2026.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶19

The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.6.2025 passed by the R.D.C. (S.D.), Odisha in OSSARC No.393/2023. The land in question was recorded as Government landSarbasadharan in 1965. The Petitioner claims to be in possession since 1961. Settlement was finalized in the year

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

The land was recorded in Sarbasadharan khata as ‘Debastali’ kisam. The R.D.C. in the order impugned observed that the suit land is in possession of the Petitioner and as per the procedure laid down by Government, possession of 30 years is necessary. The Petitioner could not produce any document showing its possession for the stipulated period. The prayer to record the suit land in its favour was thus disallowed.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel, this Court is of the view that the question of title being involved, the revenue authority would not be competent to decide the same. The civil Court alone is competent in this regard.

¶24

The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court seeking necessary declaration of title, if so advised.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶26

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶27

AKB

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2026 10:36:13

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, South Division, Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balliguda Baptist Church Bazar Mandali v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, South Division, Ganjam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha

Natabar Barick Vs State of Odisha

Panabudhi Oram Vs State of Odisha

A. Prasanti Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pranaballav Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Rajib Lochan Maharana Vs State of Odisha