SIMANCHAL MAJHI vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19247 of 2025
CNR No.ODHC010472652025
(An application under Article-226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
and Regulation-2 of 1956 under provisions of the OSATIP Act)
Petitioners
Simanchal Majhi & Another .….
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….. Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty,
[Standing Counsel]
Mr. S. Ranjit, Advocate
[For O.P. Nos. 5, 7 & 8]
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
13 November, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioners have filed the present writ application
challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate,
Gajapati, Paralakhemundi dated 21.01.2025 passed in
Page 1 of 8
Regulation Appeal No.1 of 2022 whereby the order passed by the
Officer on Special duty (L.R.) (OSD(LR)), Paralakhemundi (Opp.
Party No.3) was set aside.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are as follows: -
The petitioners, who are the members of a Scheduled Tribe
community claimed to have been wrongfully deprived of their
ancestral properties, under Khata No.1, which covers 20 distinct
plots of land in the Mouza-Dhepaguda, of Gajapati district. They
filed several RMCs under the provisions of the Orissa Scheduled
Areas Transfer of Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes
Regulation, 1956 (hereinafter called the OSATIP Regulation,
1956). Said cases were allowed by the OSD(LR), Paralakhemundi
by order dated 26.04.1998 recognizing the petitioners’ statutory
rights and by ordering restoration of the suit lands in their
favour. Consequently, the suit land was delivered to the
petitioners on 30.05.1998 by the revenue authorities. However,
after 24 years the present Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 preferred
appeal against such order before the A.D.M., Gajapati, who by
order dated 21.01.2025, set aside the same in Regulation Appeal
Page 2 of 8
No.1 of 2022. Said order is impugned in the present Writ
Petition.
The Opposite Parties have filed a preliminary objection to
3.
the Writ Petition claiming that the suit land is their ancestral
property and asserting that no lawful transfer was ever made to
suo motu
other parties nor the restoration was ever executed. The
institution of the RMCs by the OSD (LR) and the consequent
restoration order was without jurisdiction. They further claim
that the State retained custody of the suit land until the A.D.M.,
Gajapati restored the lands in their favour.
4. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners;
Dr. S. Ranjit, learned counsel for the private Opposite Parties
and Mr. G. Mohanty learned Standing Counsel for the State.
5. Mr. Dash would argue that the impugned order is illegal
and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Regulation Appeal was
filed by the Opposite Parties 24 years after the passing of the
original order. He further contends the Opposite Parties neither
filed application for condonation of delay nor does the impugned
order consider the limitation aspect at all. He further submits
that since the petitioners’ ownership and physical possession
Page 3 of 8
were settled by the order of the OSD (LR) back in 1998 and the
petitioners have possession for more than 24 years, the order
must be treated as having attained finality.
6. Per Contra, Mr. Ranjit would argue that the petition is not
maintainable as the petitioners have not exhausted their
available alternative remedies provided under Section-3(3) of the
Regulation, 1956 before filing the present petition. He further
suo moto
argues that as the original RMCs were instituted based
only on a field enquiry report submitted by the R.I., Adava and
WEO, Mohana, they lacked any valid authority. Thus, the
consequent order of the OSD (LR) is void. He further submits
that since the private Opposite Parties never parted with their
rights on the suit lands, leaving only the State to hold temporary
custody and collect revenue through public auctions until the
passing of the impugned order, the petitioners never actually
possessed any right with respect to the suit lands and therefore,
lack locus standi with regard to the suit land.
7. Mr. Mohanty, argues on similar lines and submits that the
appellate authority passed the impugned order after relying on
the Yaddast and on the ground that the field enquiry report
Page 4 of 8
basing on which the RMCs were instituted was not accompanied
by caste certificate or any other documents showing that the suit
lands belonged to the petitioners or their forefathers. Therefore,
the impugned order passed by the appellate Court needs no
interference.
8. Perusal of the objection filed by the petitioners before
the appellate authority and the impugned order reveal that
though the issue of delay in filing of the appeal was raised before
the appellate authority, it was not considered at all. Section 3(3)
of the OSATIP Regulation, 1956 prescribes limitation of 30 days
for filing appeal but does not provide any specific provision for
condonation of delay. In such situation, Section 29(2) of the
Limitation Act attracts Section 5, enabling condonation of delay
upon sufficient cause being shown.
9. Law is well settled that limitation goes to the root of
the maintainability and not a mere procedural formality as held
by the Supreme Court in the case of Noharlal Verma v. District
1
Cooperative Central Bank Limited . The question of limitation
1
(2008) 14 SCC 445
Page 5 of 8
must therefore be decided first, more so where inordinate delay
is apparent on the face of the record, in this case being 24 years.
In the present case, the appeal was filed beyond the
10.
prescribed period and the authority went straight to the merits
and set aside the order of the OSD (LR). There is nothing on
record or in the order-sheet to show that the parties were
specifically heard on the question of limitation. That apart, as to
when the delay was condoned and the case was admitted is also
not forthcoming. The procedure so adopted is unknown to law
and cannot be countenanced. The impugned order becomes
vulnerable on such score alone.
Such being the position, ordinarily the matter would
11.
have been remitted to the appellate authority for fresh
consideration of the question of limitation. However, a perusal of
the appeal memorandum reveals that the opposite parties had
not filed any application seeking condonation of delay before the
appellate authority. More significantly, no explanation
whatsoever has been forthcoming from the opposite parties, even
before this Court, as to the circumstances which prevented them
Page 6 of 8
from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of
limitation.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate authority
12.
ought not to have entertained the time-barred appeal and
proceeded to adjudicate the same on merits. The impugned
order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
13. It is also relevant to mention that the OSATIP
Regulation is a piece of beneficial legislation intended to
safeguard the interests of Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled
Areas. In the present case, the petitioners belong to the
Scheduled Tribe community, whereas the opposite parties
belong to the SEBC community. In the absence of any
explanation for the inordinate delay, remitting the matter merely
to afford the opposite parties another opportunity to overcome
the defect would serve no useful purpose. Such a course would
also be inconsistent with the protective object underlying the
Regulation. In the considered view of this Court, interests of
justice would, therefore, be better served by bringing the
proceedings to a close rather than permitting an unexplained,
time-barred appeal to be revived.
Page 7 of 8
14. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts, law
and the contentions raised and the discussion made, this Court
holds that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law.
15. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the A.D.M., Gajapati, Paralakhemundi dated
21.01.2025 is set aside.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
th
13 November, 2026, Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Nov-2026 16:04:45
Page 8 of 8