Dharanidhar Sahu Vs Tahasildar, Attabira

1. This writ application has been filed with the prayer to direct the Tahasildar, Attabira to demarcate the land of the Petitioner mentioned in the schedule, within a stipulated time.

¶14

The schedule land is situated in Khata No. 922/404, Mouza- Dulampur, P.S. Attabira, District-Bargarh, Plot No. 1647 – Area Ac. 0.14 decimal and Plot No. 1646/4078 - Area Ac.0.02 decimal, which stand recorded in the name of the Petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Dilip Kumr Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had brought the land from one Bansidhar Sahu on 21.04.2022 vide registered sale deed no. 162000497. For identification of his land, he had filed Demarcation Case No. 138 of 2024. Notice dated 24.06.2024 had been issued to the Petitioner and the other parties and the case posted to 06.07.2024 for hearing. He further submits that even

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

though no objection has been submitted by any of the parties and none of the conditions enumerated in Clause-4 of Circular No. 38869 dated 13.12.2016 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha are satisfied, the Tahasildar is not proceeding for demarcation.

¶18

The relevant portion of the Circular No. 38869 dated 13.12.2016 is extracted below:-

¶19

“4. Demarcation shall not be conducted in following cases:

¶20

a) If prohibitory / injunction orders passed by the competent Court of law is in force over the suit land;

¶21

b) If apprehension of breach of peace over the suit land in process of demarcation is anticipated, provided that apprehension of breach of peace shall not constitute a bar for demarcation on receipt of intimation from the Executive Magistrate competent to adjudicate cases under the preventive sections of CrPC;

¶22

c) At the time of objection hearing, if the boundary tenant(s) objects to demarcation, the Tahsildar shall consider the objections and shall pass order as he deems fit. In case of rejection of the request for demarcation, the detail reason of rejection shall be recorded by the Tahsildar;”

¶23

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and in view of the innocuous nature of order, which I purpose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to adjourn the matter to enable the learned Additional Standing Counsel to obtain instructions.

¶24

Without going into the merits of the case of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Tahasildar, Attabira to proceed for demarcation of the case land, if there is no legal

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

impediment or bar for doing so and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected by such demarcation. 7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Sukanta

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2026 20:41:19

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Dharanidhar Sahu v. Tahasildar, Attabira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharanidhar Sahu v. Tahasildar, Attabira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Human Paharia Vs State of Odisha

Suna @ Pagala Singh Vs State of Odisha

Siba Das @ Jhadia Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Tirumala Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.,(Tidpl), Kolkata Vs M/S. Devavrat Homes Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda

Sambhunath Sahu Vs Nabakanta Biswal