RUSHI KUMAR BHOI vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026
ODHC010630902026
W.P.(C) No.35198 of 2026
ODHC010885532025
W.P.(C) No. 26136 of 2026
ODHC010619902026
W.P.(C) No. 26296 of 2026
ODHC010631032026
W.P.(C) No. 26298 of 2026
ODHC010630932026
W.P.(C) No.26313 of 2026
ODHC010630982026
W.P.(C) No.26566 of 2026
ODHC010622732026
W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2026
ODHC010622782026
W.P.(C) No.26745 of 2026
ODHC010641202026
W.P.(C) No.27742 of 2026
ODHC010662232026
W.P.(C) No.27744 of 2026
ODHC010661872026
W.P.(C) No.28541 of 2026
ODHC010668952026
W.P.(C) No.28574 of 2026
ODHC010668962026
W.P.(C) No.28580 of 2026
ODHC010672682026
W.P.(C) No.28831 of 2026
ODHC010677292026
W.P.(C) No.29133 of 2026
ODHC010690282026
W.P.(C) No.29136 of 2026
ODHC010690332026
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
1
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026
Radha Mirdha & Ors.
… Petitioners
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.35198 of 2026
Sanju Meher
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 26136 of 2026
Rushi Kumar Bhoi … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 26296 of 2026
Dharmu Munda … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 26298 of 2026
Rakshi Bhoi … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
2
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
W.P.(C) No.26313 of 2026
Manish Kumar Behera
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26566 of 2026
Apurba Bagartti
… Petitioner
- versus-
The Registering Officer-Cum-Sub-Registrar,
Maneswar & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2026
Tulasi Dip
… Petitioner
- versus-
The Registering Officer Cum Sub Registrar, Sambalpur
& Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26745 of 2026
Bijay Kumar Naik
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27742 of 2026
Raju Minz
… Petitioner
- versus-
3
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27744 of 2026
Artatrana Suresh
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28541 of 2026
Suryamani Bhoi … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) Nos.28574 & 28580 of 2026
Dhanamali Mirdha … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28831 of 2026
Baikuntha Naik … Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29133 of 2026
Pravasini Sohela
… Petitioner
- versus-
4
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29136 of 2026
Biswajit Kumbhar
… Petitioner
-
versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr. P.K.Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
13.11.2026.
Sashikanta Mishra,J .
Since the facts and questions of law involved in all
these writ applications are substantially similar and the
matters have been heard analogously, they are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
brevity and convenience, however, the facts of W.P.(C)
No.26295 of 2026 shall be considered and referred to.
5
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking to
challenge the refusal of the Sub-Registrar, Sambalpur to
accept the sale deed presented by them for registration.
The petitioners claim to be the recorded tenants of the suit
land. For legal necessity they decided to sell the property
to the Opposite Party No.4. Accordingly, a sale deed was
prepared and presented before the Sub-Registrar,
Sambalpur but he refused to accept the same. Such refusal
was on the ground that though the petitioners belong to the
Scheduled Tribe and the Opposite Party No.4 is a non-
Scheduled Tribe person, no permission under Section 22 of
the OLR Act was obtained by them for such transfer. The
petitioners contend that the land being situated within the
urban area i.e., Sambalpur Municipal Corporation, the
provisions of OLR Act are not attracted as per Section 73(c)
of the Act.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Registrar
in W.P.(C) No.35198/2025 and adopted in all cases of the
batch, including the present case. It is stated that though
the land is recorded as Gharabari and situated in urban
6
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
area within Sambalpur Municipal Corporation, still
permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act is necessary
for transfer of the land as the petitioners belong to the
Scheduled Tribe. Mere inclusion in the urban area cannot
exempt the applicability of the mandatory provisions of the
OLR Act. The document was therefore, rightly not accepted
for registration.
4. Heard Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel, leading
arguments on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. G. Mohanty,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
5. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it proper
to mention here that several cases involving identical facts
have been disposed of by issuing directions similar to those
issued by a coordinate Bench in the judgment rendered in
the case of Hemanta Naik v. State of Odisha,
represented through its Secretary, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department and Another &
1
batch . When the present cases came up for hearing, the
State filed a counter affidavit and attempted to take a
1
W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2023 & Batch
7
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
different stand by contending that directions similar to
those issued in Hemanta Naik (Supra) , being contrary to
law, should not be issued. The matter was heard at length
on this point
6. Since the objection was raised by the State, it would
be proper to refer to the contentions advanced by the State
counsel at the outset.
7. Mr. G. Mohanty learned Standing Counsel for the
State, makes a two-fold argument. Firstly, having itself held
that mere inclusion of the land in an urban area would not
exclude the applicability of the provisions of Section 22 of
the OLR Act, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the revenue
authority to make a fact-finding inquiry in each case
regarding usability of the land in question for purposes
other than agriculture. Secondly, the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench was passed contrary to the ratio decided by
the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Agrawal
2
and others v. Batara Behera and, hence, cannot be
treated as a precedent being per incuriam. On such basis, it
2
1999 (3) SCC 231
8
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
is contended that the judgment in Hemanta Naik (supra)
can be ignored. Mr. Mohanty has relied upon several
judgments in support of his contentions, but in view of the
order proposed to be passed, this Court does not deem it
necessary to refer to the same.
8. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel, on the other
hand, would argue that it is nobody’s case that only
because the land is included in the urban area, the
provisions of Section 22 of the OLR Act shall not apply. It is
rather the specific case of the petitioners that the land is
not being used for agricultural purposes, having been
recorded as homestead ( Gharbari Kisam ). It is the usability
of the land which is material. Mr. Bhuyan further argues
that the Co-ordinate Bench took due note of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case Om Prakash Agrawal
(Supra) and therefore, it cannot be treated as having been
rendered per incuriam.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length,
this Court is firstly of the view that the judgment passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench in Hemanta Naik (Supra) was
9
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
never challenged by the State nor sought to be reviewed.
The State also did not challenge the orders passed by this
Court in the light of the directions issued in Hemanta
Naik (Supra) . In fact, as stated at the Bar, some of such
directions have already been complied with. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that it is no longer open to the State to
raise the point at this belated stage.
10. Coming to the other contention that the judgment in
Hemanta Naik (Supra) was rendered per incuriam and can
be ignored for being contrary to the ratio decided in Om
Prakash Agrawal (Supra) , the same principle would apply
to the effect that this is also a matter for challenge by the
State before the higher forum, which it has not done so far.
Nevertheless, this Court finds that the Coordinate Bench
has referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Agrawal
(Supra) and taking note of the specific observations therein
that the OLR Act applies to all lands which are used or
capable of being used for agricultural purposes irrespective
of where such lands are situated, found it necessary to
direct a fact-finding inquiry regarding the usability of each
10
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
parcel of land. It goes without saying that the
determination regarding usability of the land can only be a
question of fact to be decided independently in each case.
Therefore, this Court, on the same facts, has felt persuaded
to pass identical orders.
11. This Court is in respectful agreement with the
reasoning adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench in Hemanta
Naik (Supra) and is therefore, not inclined to take a
different view. The contention that Hemanta Naik (Supra)
being decided per incuriam can be ignored, is not accepted.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds
no merit in the contentions raised by the State and
therefore, issues the following directions in disposal of this
batch of writ petitions.
13. Liberty is granted 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 shall submit his opinion in
respect of the specific lands regarding its usability for
agricultural purpose in the present scenario, within a
11
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12
period of 60 days from the date of application by the
petitioners. Depending upon the opinion of the Revenue
Authority, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the
Sub-Collector/Registering Officer again.
14. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
……..……….…………….
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court of Cuttack
Date: 13-Nov-2026 17:53:27
12
W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 & Batch Page of 12