SK. MADARI vs SANKALP SWASTIK SAHOO, TAHASILDAR, BARANG
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15580 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010464072024
W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010108052025
W.P.(C) No. 4587 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010100042025
CONTC No. 4156 of 2023
CNR No. ODHC010485042023
W.P.(C) No. 26899 of 2017
CNR No. ODHC010437642017
[Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971]
W.P.(C) No. 15580 of 2024
Susila Das ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2025
Susila Das ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No. 4587 of 2025
State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Sk. Madari & Ors. ..... Opposite Party
1 24
Page of
CONTC No. 4156 of 2023
Sk. Madari ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Sankalp Swastik Sahoo,
Tahasildar, Barang ..... Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No. 26899 of 2017
Susila Das ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Party
_______________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. R.N Biswal, S.K. Mohanty,
S.B. Sahoo, D, Parida, R. Moharana,
A. Biswal, S. Samant, A. Pandia,
& D.C. Parida, Advocate
Mr. L. Samantray, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. A. K Sarangi, Advocate
(in Contempt Petition)
For Opp. Party : Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. L. Samantray, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. A. K Sarangi, Advocate
(in Writ Petitions)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
2 24
Page of
JUDGMENT
06.11.2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Since W.P.(C) Nos. 26899 of 2017, 15580
of 2024, 4882 of 2025 and 4587 of 2025 along with CONTC No.
4156 of 2023, arise out of interrelated disputes concerning the
land situated at Mouza Kurunti and involve proceedings under
the OEA Act, 1951 and the OCH & PFL Act, 1972, they were
heard analogously. However, W.P.(C) No. 26899 of 2017
challenges a distinct order dated 06.08.2016 passed in OEA R.C.
Case No. 08 of 2012 under Section 38-B of the OEA Act. As the
adjudication of the said writ petition is not necessary for deciding
the issues arising in the remaining matters, it is kept aside for
separate consideration. The present common judgment,
therefore, disposes of W.P.(C) Nos. 15580 of 2024, 4882 of 2025
and 4587 of 2025 along with CONTC No. 4156 of 2023.
FACTS
2. The dispute arises out of competing claims over land
situated at Mouza Kurunti under Baranga Tahasil of Cuttack
district. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 15580 of 2024 and 4882
of 2025 claim through their predecessor, Dhobani Das, on the
basis of a Chirasthayi Patta dated 15.04.1932, stated to have
3 24
Page of
been granted by the erstwhile intermediary, Choudhury Basudev
Das and others. The rival claims have given rise to proceedings
before the consolidation and revenue authorities and this Court.
3. The land was recorded in the earlier settlement under
M.S. Khata No. 439, Plot No. 1149, measuring Ac.24.90, as
Abada Jogya Anabadi . Dhobani Das’s claim was also considered
in Vesting Case No. 221 of 1974, wherein an order dated
23.06.1980 is stated to have been passed pursuant to G.O. No.
14399 dated 02.03.1964. The parties, however, dispute the legal
effect of the proceedings and the extent to which any right arising
therefrom could be recognised in the subsequent ROR.
4. During the consolidation operation, disputes arose over
the recording of the land and the rival claims. In Remand Appeal
Case No. 92 of 1994, the Consolidation Officer, by order dated
30.07.2001, allowed Dhobani Das’s claim to the extent of
Ac.10.43. The order was confirmed by the appellate authority on
29.04.2004, followed by further revision proceedings.
5. Sk. Madari, the petitioner in CONTC No. 4156 of 2023,
claims under a lease granted in Lease Case No. 557 of 1978 in
respect of Ac.1.50 out of Sabik Plot No. 1149, Khata No. 439. On
that basis, he initiated R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013 under Section
4 24
Page of
37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act. His claim was allowed by order dated
18.07.2014, directing correction of the ROR in his favour. The
recall application was rejected on 01.09.2017. In W.P.(C) No.
2269 of 2018, this Court, by order dated 04.03.2020, remitted
the matter for de novo hearing, directing the successor-in-
interest of Dhobani Das to establish the claim of heirship.
6. On remand, the Additional Commissioner, Settlement
and Consolidation, by order dated 09.07.2021 in R.C. Case No.
182 of 2013, again allowed Sk. Madari’s claim and directed the
Tahasildar, Barang, to correct the Hal ROR in respect of Hal Plot
No. 949 (part), measuring Ac.1.50, on the basis of the lease
relating to Sabik Plot No. 1149 (part), Khata No. 439.
7. The order dated 09.07.2021 was challenged in W.P.(C)
No. 38246 of 2021. By judgment dated 19.09.2022, this Court
remitted the matter for fresh hearing, directing the parties to
appear on 29.09.2022 and the proceeding to be concluded within
two months from their appearance. The Court also directed the
petitioners to pay cost of Rs.15,000 to Sk. Madari. Subsequently,
by order dated 11.11.2022 in R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013, the
Additional Commissioner, citing non-payment of costs and
5 24
Page of
failure of the concerned parties to appear, upheld the earlier
order dated 09.07.2021.
8. The petitioners thereafter sought restoration through
Misc. Case No. 1 of 2023 arising out of R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013,
purportedly on the basis of leave granted by this Court by order
dated 29.11.2021. The application was allowed; however, by
order dated 03.05.2024, the authority maintained its earlier
order dated 11.11.2022.
9. Meanwhile, Sk. Madari filed W.P.(C) No. 3812 of 2023
seeking implementation of the order dated 09.07.2021. By order
dated 13.02.2023, this Court directed the Tahasildar, Barang, to
work out the direction contained at page 10 of the brief in R.C.
Case No. 182 of 2013 within one month of communication of the
certified copy, provided there was no further challenge to the
order or interim order staying its operation by any court.
10. Alleging non-compliance with the order dated
13.02.2023, Sk. Madari instituted CONTC No. 4156 of 2023
against the Tahasildar, Barang. The opposite party filed a show-
cause affidavit denying wilful disobedience and explaining the
steps taken in view of the subsequent developments in the
proceedings before the Commissioner.
6 24
Page of
11. In order to be precise, W.P.(C) No. 15580 of 2024 has
been filed by the claimants through Dhobani Das, challenging
the orders dated 11.11.2022 and 03.05.2024 passed in R.C. Case
No. 182 of 2013 and the connected proceedings. W.P.(C) No. 4882
of 2025 raises a challenge to the maintainability and legality of
the proceeding initiated under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL
Act. W.P.(C) No. 4587 of 2025 has been filed by the State of
Odisha challenging the order dated 09.07.2021 passed in R.C.
Case No. 182 of 2013.
SUBMISSIONS
12. Heard Mr. R.N Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners
in WP(C) Nos. 26899 of 2017, 15580 of 2024 and 4882 of 2025,
Mr. L. Samantray, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. A.K Sarangi,
learned counsel for the contempt petitioner and Mr. G. Mohanty,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
13. As regards the challenge raised in the writ petitions, Mr.
Samantray submits that the claim of Sk. Madari has already been
considered by the competent authority but the direction for
correction of the ROR has not been implemented. He therefore,
opposes the challenge to the subsequent proceedings and
submits that the relief sought by the contempt petitioner ought
7 24
Page of
not be defeated by the objections raised by the rival claimants.
He also raises an objection as to the maintainability of W.P.(C)
Nos. 15580 of 2024 and 4882 of 2025, arguing that the reliefs
sought in the two writ petitions are identical. He submits that the
petitioners cannot maintain separate writ proceedings seeking
substantially the same relief in relation to R.C. Case No. 182 of
2013. In so far as the Contempt application is concerned, Mr.
Samantray would argue that despite the order dated 13.02.2023
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3812 of 2023, the Tahasildar
has failed to carry out the direction issued therein. He submits
that the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in R.C. Case No. 182 of
2013 has maintained the earlier order dated 11.11.2022 which
actually upheld the order dated 09.07.2021 and as such no
impediment remains for implementation of the direction sought
by the contempt petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the
continued failure to correct the ROR warrants action in the
contempt application.
14. Per Contra, Mr. Biswal submits that the order dated
09.07.2021 passed in R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013 had already
been set aside in spirit by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 38246 of 2021
by judgment dated 19.09.2022 as the result in the aforesaid writ
8 24
Page of
petition records that the writ petition succeeded and the matter
was remanded for de novo hearing. Therefore, according to him,
the Additional Commissioner could not have upheld his earlier
order by the subsequent order dated 11.11.2022. He also
submits that the subsequent order dated 03.05.2024, insofar as
it maintains the earlier order, suffers from the same legal
infirmity. Mr. Biswal also alleges that the order dated 13.02.2023
in W.P.(C) No. 3812 of 2023, from which the present contempt
proceeding arises, was passed because the petitioner therein
suppressed material facts relating to the proceedings in R.C.
Case No. 182 of 2013, thereby misleading this Court. In reply to
the objection raised by Mr. Samantray regarding the
maintainability of the writ petitions, Mr. Biswal submits that
W.P.(C) Nos. 15580 of 2024 and 4882 of 2025 raise distinct
issues, inasmuch as the former challenges the subsequent orders
dated 11.11.2022 and 03.05.2024, whereas the latter questions
the very maintainability and legality of the proceeding under
Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act. He, therefore, submits that
the two writ petitions raise separate grounds of challenge.
15. Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the State,
submits that the land, measuring Ac.1.50, was leased out to
9 24
Page of
opposite party No. 1, Sk. Madari in Lease Case No. 557 of 1978
for agricultural purposes, but was never utilised for such
purposes. Consequently, in the settlement operation, the land
was recorded as Government land under Khata No. 464, Plot No.
in the final ROR published on
949, as ‘ Abadajogya Anabadi’
21.04.1988. Despite knowledge of the said entry, opposite party
No. 1, Sk. Madari initiated R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013 after a lapse
of about 25 years, seeking correction of the ROR on the basis of
the lease. He also submits that the Additional Commissioner
failed to consider the parawise comments of Tahasildar, Barang,
supported by the field inquiry of the RI and Amin, indicating that
the land was barren and had not been used for agricultural
purposes, thereby violating the terms of the lease. He, therefore,
assails the impugned order as illegal and unsustainable. Insofar
as the contempt petition is concerned, he submits that there has
been no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on
the part of the Tahasildar, Barang. He submits that, in view of
the subsequent developments and the pendency of proceedings
relating to R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013, the Tahasildar was unable
to proceed with the correction of the ROR as directed.
ANALYSIS
10 24
Page of
16. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and on consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the
records, this Court finds that the principal controversy requiring
determination concerns the effect of the judgment dated
19.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 38246 of 2021 on the
subsequent orders passed in R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013, as well
as obligation cast on the Tahasildar, Barang, to comply with the
order dated 13.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3812 of 2023. The
maintainability of the challenge to the proceedings under Section
37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act also requires consideration in the
light of the pleadings and reliefs sought in the connected writ
petitions.
17. The undisputed sequence of events shows that the order
dated 09.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Settlement and Consolidation, in R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013 was
challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 38246 of 2021. By
judgment dated 19.09.2022, this Court allowed the writ petition
and remitted the matter for fresh hearing with directions
regarding the appearance of the parties and completion of the
proceeding within a stipulated period. The effect of the said
judgment on the order dated 09.07.2021 is, however, a matter of
11 24
Page of
dispute between the parties. Mr. Samantray submits that,
although the matter was remanded for de novo hearing, the
earlier order was not set aside. He further submits that, even
assuming that the order stood impliedly set aside, the petitioner's
failure to comply with the directions issued in the remand order
rendered the Additional Commissioner competent to uphold the
earlier order. Per contra, Mr. Biswal submits that, the order dated
09.07.2021 having been set aside in spirit, the Additional
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, could not have
restored it as an operative adjudication of the claim and the same
could not thereafter be treated as subsisting. For better
appreciation of the rival submissions, the operative portion of the
judgment of this Court is reproduced below:
xx xx
“xx
7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and as
recorded hereinabove, this Court from the directive portion
in paragraph no.8 of the order dated 4.03.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.2269 of 2018, finds, there is a clear direction for de novo
hearing of the revision involved herein that too in a writ only
at their instance. For the revision moved by the very same
Petitioners, this Court finds, it becomes the responsibility of
the Petitioners to attend the Revisional Court with a copy of
the order and take the date of hearing. Again for an order
having been passed in favour of the Petitioners in the earlier
Writ Petition, there was no occasion on the part of the
revisional authority in issuing notice to the Petitioners. This
Court finds, for the second round of litigation the contesting
Opposite Parties suffer for their no fault. For noticing serious
lapse on the part of the Petitioners and compelling this Court
to interfere in the impugned order being ex parte one, this
Court to provide one more opportunity to the Petitioners
12 24
Page of
interferes in the impugned order at Annexure-2 but under
compelling situation and again remits the matter back to the
Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation,
Odisha, Cuttack for rehearing of the R.C. Case No.182 of
2013. While also directing the Additional Commissioner,
Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack to have de novo
hearing, this Court also directs both the parties to appear
before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and
Consolidation along with a copy of this order on 29th
September, 2022 and take the date of hearing of the matter.
8. Further considering the input in the memo at Annexure-
3, this Court while finding that the impugned order was
passed on 9.07.2021, finds, the memo at Annexure-3 was
filed undisputedly much after closure of the case by the
revisional authority. For belated attempt there was no
occasion on the part of the Joint Commissioner,
Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack to entertain
such memo. For the matter is already remanded in the 2nd
round of litigation, this Court while directing the parties to
appear before the authority on the date fixed, also directs
the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation,
Cuttack to see finality of the proceeding within a period of
two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
9. This Court here taking into account the sufferings of the
Opposite Party No.3 being a 95 years’ old person for no fault
of him, this Court imposes a heavy cost on the Petitioners
by assessing the same to a sum of Rs.15,000/- (rupees
fifteen thousand), which will be paid to the Opposite Party
No.3 on the date of appearance before the Additional
Commissioner itself.
10. The Writ Petition succeeds, but again with an order of
remand. There is, however, with award of costs”
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated
11.11.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner assumes
significance. As recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the
authority purported to uphold the earlier order dated 09.07.2021
on the ground of non-compliance with the direction for payment
of costs and failure of the concerned parties to appear on the date
13 24
Page of
fixed. However, once the matter had been remitted for fresh
hearing, the authority was required to proceed in accordance
with the remand directions. The consequences, if any, flowing
from non-payment of costs or non-appearance of a party had to
be considered in the context of the pending proceeding and the
directions contained in the judgment of this Court. Such
circumstances, therefore, require consideration while deciding
the dispute.
19. What can be inferred from the judgment dated
19.09.2022 is that, although this Court had observed that the
‘writ petition succeeds’, it had remitted the matter for fresh
hearing without expressly setting aside the order dated
09.07.2021 and had imposed certain conditions on the
petitioners. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the
order dated 09.07.2021 was placed in a state of legal abeyance
(suspended animation), i.e., it was neither fully existent nor fully
non-existent. In the event, the petitioners comply with the terms
of the remand, the earlier order would cease to operate and a
fresh adjudication would take its place. Conversely, if the
petitioners fail to comply with the terms of the remand, the
suspension would stand lifted. In a way, the interference by this
14 24
Page of
Court with order dated 09.07.2021 was a conditional one
contingent upon compliance of the specific directions issued by
it. In such circumstances, both the Additional Commissioner and
the petitioners were required to comply with their respective
obligations under the directions issued by this Court.
The petitioners did not comply with the direction
regarding payment of costs and instead sought an extension of
time by filing a memo before the Additional Commissioner on the
very date of order impugned. The authority, notwithstanding the
filing of such memo, was not competent to extend the time
stipulated by this Court. The Additional Commissioner rejected
the prayer for extension of time and upheld the order dated
09.07.2021, also taking into consideration the other grounds
recorded therein. This Court, is of the view that the authority
rightly took note of the petitioners' conduct, as they had forfeited
their opportunity of being heard on account of their own acts of
omission and commission.
For better appreciation, order dated 11.11.2022 is
reproduced below:
“The case record is put up today. Both parties are present
along with Addl. Standing Counsel. The learned Counsel of
the Writ Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38246 of 2021 and
Opp.Party in corresponding R.C No.182/2013 submits a
15 24
Page of
memo, praying for one more months’ time for payment of
cost as parties are all suffering from Corona Positive without
any medical certificate to this effect. Despite lapse of around
more than one and half month of time from the date of their
filing of memo i.e. on dtd.29.09.2022 and marginal order
thereon, they have failed to submit the medical certificate or
Corona positive test report, in support of their plea of
sickness. The learned Counsel of the 0pp.Party in this
W.P.(C), on the other hand, submitting his written note of
defence, has- vehemently pleaded for outright dismissal of
the memo of the writ petitioners, for clearly disobeying the
kind order of Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P. (C)
No.38246/2021. He submits that the writ petitioners are
taking a hide and seek approach in pursuing the original
R.C. No.182/2013 nor paying 0pp.party, the imposed cost
of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) till date.
On appreciation of memos and notes of defence as
submitted by both parties and on hearing of the averments
of the learned counsels of both sides, this court is of the
opinion that nothing stands above the kind order passed by
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) NO.38246 / 2021. The
proceeds of this case prima-facie established this fact that
tl^e writ petitioners have no respect for the kind order of
Hon'ble High Court, nor the orders passed by this court.
Neither he has paid the cost of Rs.15,000/- to the opp.party
on the date of filing of memo and till date, nor have they
submitted any corroborated evidence like medical certificate
or corona positive test report in support of their plea of
illness. Even they have not appeared in this court on
dtd.18.10.2022. These acts of omission and commission on
the part of the writ petitioners sue moto establish the fact
that they have blatantly violated the kind order of Hon'ble
High Court.
Considering the above and above all adhering to the
time line fixed by the Hon'ble High Court for finalization of
the case within a period of two months from the date of filing
of memo by the writ petitioner for de novo hearing of R.C.
No.182/2013, stands dismissed, and the order
dtd.09.07.2021 passed in R.C. No.182/2013 is upheld.
The case matter disposed of as such. Order pronounced
today on dtd.11.11.2022.”
For the reasons indicated in detail, this Court finds no
illegality or infirmity in the aforequoted order of the
Commissioner so as to interfere.
16 24
Page of
20. The subsequent order dated 03.05.2024, whereby the
Additional Commissioner maintained the earlier order dated
11.11.2022, also requires consideration. It is relevant to note that
R.C. Case No.182 of 2013 was restored to file on 17.03.2023 in
Misc. Case No.1 of 2023, purportedly in exercise of the liberty
granted by this Court by order dated 29.11.2021 in W.P.(C)
No.38246 of 2021, wherein this Court had observed as follows:
“In course of submission, a Memo is filed by the learned
counsel for O.P.3 clearly indicating that the main proceeding
involved herein is already disposed of since 11.11.2022.
For the Memo. with signature of the learned counsel for
O.P.3 being filed, this Court directs closure of the proceeding
for the mentioning made but however, with liberty to the
Petitioners, in the event any cause of action survives, to re-
open the matter. The Memo. be kept on Record.”
In the meantime, Sk. Madari had approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.3812 of 2023, which culminated in the order dated
13.02.2023 directing the Tahasildar, Barang, to work out the
direction contained at page 10 of the brief in R.C. Case No.182 of
2013 within one month of communication of the certified copy,
subject to there being no further challenge to the order dated
09.07.2021 or any interim order staying its operation. At that
stage, the order dated 09.07.2021 had been upheld by the order
dated 11.11.2022, and there was no order of stay operating
against its implementation. Consequently, the Tahasildar was
17 24
Page of
required to act in terms of the direction issued by this Court. The
subsequent restoration of the R.C. case on 17.03.2023, at the
instance of the petitioners, on the basis of the liberty granted in
the order dated 29.11.2021, cannot, by itself, render the earlier
direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3812 of 2023 inoperative
without any order of stay. Further, on perusal of the order dated
03.05.2024, this Court does not find any infirmity therein,
inasmuch as the Additional Commissioner, taking note of the
legal opinion furnished by the learned Standing Counsel and the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, rejected the claim
of the intervenor-petitioner and disposed of the matter by
maintaining the earlier order dated 11.11.2022, which had
upheld the order dated 09.07.2021. The order dated 03.05.2024
reads as follows:
“The Leamed Counsel for the petitioner, is present. The
Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. The Ld,
S.C has furnished his view wherein he has stated that the
present intervener petitioner has no-locus standi to Implead
in the case and It is neither necessary nor is he a proper
party in this case. Also it seems to be an afterthought.
Hence, this petition is/liable to be rejected.
The Counsel claiming on behalf of the Intervener petitioner
prayed for further time. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
strongly opposed the time petition and also the Ld. Standing
Counsel.
In view of the legal opinion of the S.C of this court, the claim
of the intervener petitioner is hereby rejected and the case
18 24
Page of
is disposed of accordingly. The previous order dated 11. 11
2022 passed in R.C No. 182/2013 is upheld.”
21. The challenge in W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2025 raises a
question concerning the maintainability and legality of the
proceeding initiated under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act.
Mr. Samantray objects to the maintainability of the said writ
petition on the ground that substantially identical reliefs have
already been sought in W.P.(C) No. 15580 of 2024. On
examination of the pleadings in the latter writ petition, this Court
finds that the petitioners therein have, in paragraph 13,
specifically questioned the maintainability of R.C. Case No. 182
of 2013 under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, stating that,
after withdrawal of Consolidation Revision No. 15 of 2007 under
Section 36 of the said Act, opposite party No. 5 could not have
initiated a fresh proceeding in respect of the self-same land. In
this context, reliance may be placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh
1
Jadon , wherein it has been held that the principles of
constructive res judicata preclude a party from initiating multiple
proceedings in respect of the same cause of action by raising
issues which might and ought to have been raised in the earlier
1
(2022) 8 SCC 378
19 24
Page of
proceeding. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that
the objection regarding the maintainability of R.C. Case No. 182
of 2013 was already specifically raised in W.P.(C) No. 15580 of
2024 and, therefore, cannot be treated as an independent or
fresh ground of challenge in W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2025. Although
the former writ petition primarily challenges the subsequent
orders dated 11.11.2022 and 03.05.2024, the legality of the
initiation of the proceeding under Section 37(1) already forms
part of the controversy therein. However, since the issue has not
yet attained finality, the bar of res judicata cannot strictly be
applied at this stage. Nevertheless, permitting the same issue to
be pursued through separate writ proceedings would result in
multiplicity of litigation, which would also be contrary to the
settled policy of law.
22. Having held as above, this Court proceeds to examine
whether the initiation and continuation of R.C. Case No.182 of
2013 under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act was
impermissible merely because Consolidation Revision No.15 of
2007, earlier preferred by opposite party No.5 under Section 36
of the Act, had been withdrawn. In this regard, Mr. Biswal relies
on the decision of this Court in the case of Niranjan Satapathy
20 24
Page of
2
and others v. Benudhar Satapathy and others , wherein it
was observed that, though the Commissioner possesses wide
supervisory powers under Section 37(1), such powers cannot be
routinely exercised to bypass the statutory remedies of appeal
under Section 12 and revision under Section 36 of the Act. The
facts of the said case are different in as much as the remedies of
objection under Section 9, appeal under Section 12 and Revisions
under Section 36 and 37 had already been exhausted by the
petitioners. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation
Officer to decide the objection under Section 9 afresh. The order
so passed by the Consolidation Officer was sought to be
challenged in a revision under Section 37 of the Act without
preferring appeal under Section 12 or revision under Section 36.
In this context, this Court held that the revision under Section
37 without exhausting the statutory remedies available, is not
maintainable. Said decision, however, does not altogether
preclude the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 37(1), but
requires such exercise to remain within the limits of the
supervisory power conferred by the statute. The mere withdrawal
of the earlier revision under Section 36 would not, by itself,
2
W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009
21 24
Page of
render the subsequent proceeding under Section 37(1) without
jurisdiction. Its maintainability must be examined with reference
to the nature of the earlier proceedings, the order sought to be
assailed, the grounds for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
and the statutory limits governing its exercise. Therefore, this
Court would not be justified in holding the proceeding inherently
not maintainable merely on the ground of withdrawal of the
earlier revision.
23. Viewed from another angle, despite being afforded ample
opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the
Additional Commissioner, the petitioners, by their own acts of
omission and commission, failed to raise the question of
maintainability of R.C. Case No.182 of 2013 before the said
authority. This Court has already taken note of such conduct in
the preceding paragraphs. Their failure to raise the objection at
the subsequent stage would, therefore, also attract the principle
of waiver.
It would also be appropriate to mention that, in the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 38246 of 2021, this
Court had observed that, in the R.C. case, the petitioners were
required to establish that they were the legal heirs of Dhobani
22 24
Page of
Das. In the absence of any material having been placed before
this Court to establish the same, this Court finds that the
petitioners have no locus to challenge the proceedings.
24. Coming to W.P.(C) No.4587 of 2025 filed by the State
challenging the order dated 09.07.2021 passed in R.C. Case
No.182 of 2013, this Court finds that the challenge has been
raised at a highly belated stage without any sufficient
explanation for the delay. It is relevant to note that, by order
dated 13.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.3812 of 2023, this Court
had directed the Tahasildar, Barang, to work out the direction
contained in the order dated 09.07.2021, subject to there being
no further challenge to the said order or any interim order staying
its operation. Said direction has neither been modified nor
recalled. This Court, therefore, cannot sit in appeal over its own
earlier order or indirectly dilute the direction issued therein.
25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the orders dated 11.11.2022 and 03.05.2024
passed in R.C. Case No.182 of 2013. The challenge to the
maintainability of the proceeding under Section 37(1) of the OCH
& PFL Act also fails, in view of the petitioners’ conduct and the
absence of any material establishing that the proceeding was
23 24
Page of
inherently beyond the jurisdiction of the authority. The challenge
by the State to the order dated 09.07.2021 is equally
unsustainable for the reasons discussed hereinabove.
Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos.15580 of 2024, 4882 of 2025 and 4587
of 2025 are dismissed. So far as CONTC No.4156 of 2023 is
concerned, one months’ time is granted to the Tahasildar, Barang
to work out the direction contained at page 10 of the brief in R.C.
Case No. 182 of 2013 and to file compliance affidavit before this
Court. Till such time the CONTC No.4156 of 2023 be kept
pending.
26. List W.P.(C) No. 26899 of 2017 on 13.11.2026 for further
hearing under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’.
…..……….…………….
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 6 November, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 06-Nov-2026 15:13:41
24 24
Page of