Disposed¶23

Durga Nandini Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 May 2026WP(C)/4804/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC disposes writ directing ROR correction; Tahasildar Sadar Cuttack; Plot No. 1986; Settlement Khata No. 1027; Sabik Khata No. 166 Plot No. 921; Kathagadasahi; Mouza Cuttack Sahar Unit 16; District Sub-Registrar sale deed registration alternative prayer; Durga Nandini Mohanty v State of Odisha; W.P.(C) 4804 of 2026; compliance within a week; G. Mukherji Sr. Adv.; S.N. Pattnaik AGA.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with direction to the Tahasildar, Sadar to make necessary corrections in the ROR in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 1986 without any further delay and in any case within a week from the date of communication of the order by the learned State counsel; a free copy of the order to be handed over to the learned State Counsel for compliance. ¶23

Durga Nandini Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to forthwith issue the Record of Rights in respect of the petitioners' property. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Taking note that there seems to be no dispute as regards the ownership of the petitioners at least in respect of Plot No. 1986, the Court disposed of the writ application directing the Tahasildar, Sadar to make necessary corrections in the ROR in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 1986 without any further delay and in any case within a week from the date of communication of this order by the learned State counsel.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the reply/instruction submitted by the Tahasildar justifying why the exact measurement of the plots could not be done, observing that the matter is unnecessarily being dragged.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 4804 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Sashikanta Mishra, J.), order dated 04.05.2026 — Petitioners (Durga Nandini Mohanty and others, represented by G. Mukherji, Sr. Adv.) prayed for direction to the Tahsildar to forthwith issue the Record of Rights, or alternatively to the District Sub-Registrar to allow registration of the sale deed in respect of land in District & DSRO Cuttack, Tahsil Cuttack, P.S Purighat, Mouza Cuttack Sahar Unit No. 16, Kathagadasahi, Settlement Khata No. 1027, Plot No. 1986 (Ac. 0.07 dec out of Ac. 0.17 dec), corresponding to Sabik Khata No. 166, Plot No. 921. The Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack had submitted instruction dated 02.05.2026 (handed over by S.N. Pattnaik, AGA) giving reasons why the exact measurement of the plots could not be done; the Court was not satisfied and observed the matter was unnecessarily being dragged. Finding no dispute as to the petitioners' ownership at least in respect of Plot No. 1986, the Court disposed of the writ application directing the Tahasildar, Sadar to make necessary corrections in the ROR in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 1986 without further delay and in any case within a week from communication of the order by the learned State counsel; a free copy of the order was to be handed to the State Counsel for compliance.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4804 of 2026

¶2

Durga Nandini Mohanty and …. Petitioners others

¶3

Represented by Mr. G. Mukherji, Sr. Advocate

¶4

-Versus –

¶5

State of Odisha and Others ….

¶6

Opp. Parties

¶7

Represented by Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

Order No. 08.

04.05.2026

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate hands over a copy of the detailed instruction submitted by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack dated 02.05.2026 addressed to the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack. A copy of the instruction be taken on record. Several things have been stated to justify as to why the exact measurement of the plots in question could not be done. This Court is not satisfied with the reply submitted and is constrained to observe that the matter is unnecessarily being dragged.

¶14

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following

¶15

prayer:-

¶16

“It is therefore prayed, that direction be issued to,

¶17

i. the Tahsildar to forthwith issue the Record of Rights,

¶18

ii. Alternatively the District Sub- Registrar be directed to allow the Petitioner to register the sale deed in respect of the property described- In respect of land situated in District & DSRO - Cuttack, Tahsil- Cuttack No.216 , P.S- Purighat, Mouza- Cuttack Sahar Unit No. 16, Kathagadasahi, Settlement Khata No. 1027, Plot No. 1986, Acre- Ac. 0.07 dec out of Ac. 0.17 dec, bounded by Plot No. 1985 on the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Western side, corresponding to Sabik Khata No. 166, Plot No. 921.

¶21

And for any other such relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶22

And for this act of kindness the Petitioners shall ever pray”

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that there seems to be no dispute as regards the ownership of the petitioners at least in respect of Plot No.1986, the writ application is disposed of directing the Tahasildar, Sadar to make necessary corrections in the ROR in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No.1986 without any further delay and in any case, within a week from the date of communication of this order by the learned State counsel.

¶24