Dismissed¶9

Ramakrishna Padhy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Feb 2026WP(C)/37340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry permit withdrawal; Divisional Forest Officer Balliguda Forest Division; Budanai South PRF; Tumudibandha Range; Kandhamal; Plot No.158 (A) Khata No.16 village Dadanga; Record of Rights 'Patita' entry rebuttable presumption; correction of land records; mistaken entry no indefeasible right; Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 embargo; refund of statutory dues within two weeks; W.P.(C) No.37340 of 2025; Orissa High Court; Harish Tandon; Murahari Sri Raman.

What did the court decide?

Direction that if any statutory amount for the period the petitioner was prevented from operating the quarry has been paid, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶9

Ramakrishna Padhy Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda withdrawing continuance of the quarry operation, founded on the finding that the plot lies within the boundaries of the Reserve Forest, suffers from any infirmity notwithstanding the plot's Record of Rights entry as 'Patita' land. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Where the land comes within the boundaries of the forest area, the provision created in the law/statute applies and there is no incongruity on the part of the authorities in preventing the quarry operation for the rest of the period of the lease.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

An entry in the Record of Rights may be treated as correct by raising a presumption, but the presumption is rebuttable; it neither creates nor extinguishes any vested or absolute right, the entry being intended for collection of land revenue and making a person responsible therefor.

¶6

Key takeaways

The nature of land recorded in the Record of Rights is susceptible to correction; where enquiry reveals that the land falls within the boundaries of the forest range, there is no fetter on the authorities in making correction in the Record of Rights.ratio¶6
Anything done on a mistake or mistaken entry in the Record of Rights creates no inchoate or indefeasible right in the person or in the authorities; such entries may be corrected if found erroneous and incorrect.ratio¶7
No infirmity exists in the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda (opposite party No.6) withdrawing continuance of the quarry operation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.37340 of 2025 (Orissa High Court, Cuttack, 17.02.2026; Coram: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman): The petitioner challenged the order dated 23.11.2025 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda Forest Division withdrawing continuance of his stone quarry operation on Plot No.158 (A), Khata No.16, village Dadanga, Tumudibandha Tahasil, Kandhamal, on the finding that the plot lies within Budanai South PRF of Tumudibandha Range. HELD: (i) an entry in the Record of Rights (here 'Patita' land) raises only a rebuttable presumption, creates no vested or absolute right, and the nature of land so recorded is susceptible to correction; (ii) anything done on a mistaken entry creates no inchoate or indefeasible right; (iii) where the land falls within the boundaries of the forest area, the embargo under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies and the authorities may prevent quarry operation for the rest of the lease period. Finding no infirmity in the DFO's order, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, with a direction to refund any statutory amount paid for the barred period within two weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.37340 of 2025

¶2

Sri Ramakrishna Padhy ….

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Ms.Sujata Jena, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Sonali Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Ms.Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

17.02.2026

Order No.

01. 1. The challenge is made to the Order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda Forest Division, Balliguda, Kandhamal (opposite party No.6) dated 23^rd November, 2025, by which the continuance of the quarry operation was withdrawn as the area shown in the permit falls within the territorial boundary of Budanai South PRF of Tumudibandha Range.

¶17

2. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a quarry permit to extract the minerals after observing and/or adhering all the terms and conditions including the statutory provisions. Subsequently, confusion was created as to whether the area included in the permit falls within the forest area or not and steps were taken in this regard. The petitioner was prevented from continuing with the quarry operation and an application was made before the competent authority which was kept in

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

suspended animation; that constrained the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.31288 of 2025.

¶20

3. It was argued before this Bench in the said writ petition that the petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder and a quarry lease was also executed in his favour. Even the environmental clearance was granted by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and the consent to operate was also issued by the State Pollution Control Board.

¶21

4. Since the authorities were in dilemma as to whether the said area comes within the forest range, the inspection was sought to be done and ultimately the matter was pending before the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the said authority to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in relation to grant of permit to operate the quarry in question and also the clearance certificate from the forest officer with a clear stipulation that all the authorities would act in tandem in taking a decision.

¶22

4.1. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order is passed

¶23

by the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda indicating that the field enquiry report of the Forest Range Officer of Tumudibandha Range and a joint field enquiry report was also submitted which reveals that Plot No.158 (A), Khata No.16 at village Dadanga in Tumudibandha Tahasil of Kandhamal District is situated within the boundary of the Budanai South PRF of Tumudibandha Range. It was further highlighted that the said stone quarry Plot falls within the limit of the said Reserve Forest, and, therefore, in view of the embargo having created under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the quarry cannot be permitted to continue.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

5. According to learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, while granting the permit, the Forest Officer has granted the permission as it does not come within the forest area, and, in fact, multi period of the permit was enjoyed by the petitioner except small period of 28 (twenty eight) months when the petitioner has been prevented from operating the quarry. According to her, the Plot in question is recorded in the Record of Rights as ‘Patita’ land which can be reasonably inferred that it does not come within the forest area.

¶26

6. Considering the tenet of the impugned order which vividly reflects that the Plot in question comes within the boundaries of the Reserve Forest, we are unable to countenance the submission advanced by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. We are not unmindful of the proposition of law that the entry in the Record of Rights may be treated as correct by raising a presumption, but the same is rebuttable in nature. It neither creates any vested and/or absolute right into a person nor extinguishes such right, as such, entry is intended for collection of land revenue and making a person responsible therefor. The nature of land recorded in the Record of Rights is susceptible to be corrected, and, in the event, the enquiry reveals that it falls within the boundaries of the forest range, there is no fetter on the part of the authority (s) in making correction in the Record of Rights.

¶27

7. Leave apart, we are not concerned with the erroneous entry in the Record of Rights or a wrong entry therein, but if the land comes within the boundaries of the forest area, in view of the provision having created in the law/statute, there is no

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

incongruity on the part of the authority (s) in preventing such quarry operation for rest of the period of lease. Anything done on a mistake or mistaken entry in the Record of Rights does not create any inchoate or indefeasible right into the person nor in the authority (s) as the same may be corrected, if found to be erroneous and incorrect in this regard.

¶30

8. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Balliguda (opposite party No.6).

¶31

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs.

¶32

10. It goes without saying that if any amount is required to be deposited with the authority (s) for the period when the petitioner has been prevented to operate the quarry under the permit, it is obligatory on the part of the State to reimburse the said amount. The authority is, therefore, directed that in the event any statutory amount for the said period has been paid, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶34

Bichi

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 18-Feb-2026 17:49:17

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Ramakrishna Padhy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Padhy 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Crushaders Tech Solution Llp, Khandagiri, Khurda Vs Superintendent GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II Division

M/S Pd Agarwal, Angul Vs State Tax Officer State GST Department, Angul

Champalal Panaka Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Cuttack Odisha

Sugriba Dehury Vs State of Odisha

Janak Ram Patel Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha