Disposed

Karunakar Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2026WP(C)/29489/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed of Scheduled Tribe land due to lack of Sub-Collector permission. Bench held that given the precedent in Hemanta Naik, the matter must be referred to the competent revenue authority for an opinion on usability under Section 73(C).

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the competent Revenue Authority (Tahasildar) for an opinion on the usability of the land for agricultural purposes within 60 days.

Karunakar Rout Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29489 of 2026

¶2

CNR No.ODHC010703092026

¶3

Karunakar Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Ms. B. Dash, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

11.09.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶15

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the arbitrariness of the authority in refusing to entertain the document for registration for want of a permission of Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “OLR Act”).

¶16

The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the recorded tenant irrespective of the land situated at Mouza - Dhankauda, Tahasil - Sambalpur No.221, P.S. Sambalpur, P.S. No. 24, Dist. Sambalpur, bearing Khata No.290/1027, Plot No.93/2025, areaAc0.040 dec, Kisam-Gharabari. Being in urgent need of money to meet the legal necessities, the Petitioner decided to sell the aforementioned property and accordingly, he approached the Opp. Party No.4, who agreed to purchase the said property. The conveyance deed having been prepared for sale of the proposed land, the same was placed before the Registering Authority. The

¶17

Registering Authority declined to entertain the document of the Petitioner for registration on the ground that the land in question belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community, and the same cannot be transacted without the written permission of the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur, according to Section 22 of the OLR Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the Kisam land in question, being “homestead” and situated in an urban area, does not come within the purview of Section 22 of the OLR Act, inasmuch as the land, being situated within the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation, is exempted under Section 73(C) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. He further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2023, in the matter of Hemanta Naik & Others v. State of Odisha & Others and analogous matters, directed the Parties, while granting liberty to approach the Competent Revenue Authority, i.e., the concerned Tahasildar, to give an opinion on the usability of the land and finally directed as under:-

¶19

“18. In the result this court disposes of all the writ petitions granting liberty to each Petitioner to approach the competent Revenue Authority, i.e. concerned Tahasildar to give his opinion on the usability of the land and in such event the concerned Tahasildar is directed to give his opinion in respect of each specific land of respective Petitioners regarding its usability for agricultural purpose any more in the present scenario, within a period of 60 days from the date of application. Depending upon the opinion of the Revenue Authority, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the registering officer again.”

¶20

Judicial discipline demands that the similar matter be taken in similar footing if the direction so passed by the Co-ordinate Bench assures the position of law. The direction passed by the Co-

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

ordinate Bench having not challenged by the Government, any further and the same reached finality in all respect there is no fetter on the part of this Court in disposing the present writ application, with a direction that the matter be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law, keeping in view the ratio in the matter of Hemanta Naik (supra) .

¶23

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶24

Judge

¶25

AK Pradhan

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 12-Sep-2026 13:41:10

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Karunakar Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunakar Rout v. State of Odisha

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