RENUBALA ACHARYA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.33816 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010809582026

(In the matter of application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India).

Renubala Acharya & others Petitioners
…
-versus-
State of Odisha & others Opposite Parties
…



For Petitioners : Mr. G. Mukherjee, Sr.
Advocate along with
Mr. A. Nair, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. J.K.K. Ray, ASC
Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate
(OPNo.5)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:16.10.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioners, by way of this Writ Petition,
seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with
following prayer: -
(i). Direct the Opposite Parties to immediately
“
stop and refrain from undertaking any further
construction of the crematorium or carrying out
any ploughing, excavation or other activity over
Plot No. 60/139, Khata No. 61/12,
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 1 of 12

Mouza-Subudhipur,Tahasil-Bhubaneswar, Dist-
Khordha, measuring Ac. 0.200 decimals,
belonging to the Petitioners;
(ii). Direct the Opposite Parties to maintain
status quo with respect to the nature, character
and possession of Plot No. 60/139 during the
pendency of the present writ petition;
(iii). Direct the Opposite Parties to identify,
demarcate and select a suitable alternative site
for construction of the proposed crematorium at
a location sufficiently away from human
habitation.”

2. The factual matrix underpinning the controversy
in sequence reveals that one Ramesh Chandra Dash had
applied before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for
settlement of a patch of Government land for cultivation
and residential purpose. According to the writ petitioner,
the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settled/leased out a piece of
land in favour of said Ramesh Chandra Dash in WL Case
Nos.114/1974 & 1251/1974 and, accordingly, the said
land was duly recorded in the name of Ramesh Chandra
Dash in Mutation Khata No.61/12, but upon the demise of
said Ramesh Chandra Dash, his Legal Heirs (LRs), who
are the vendors of the present Writ Petitioner succeeded
to his interest in the property and continued in
uninterrupted possession thereof. Subsequently, the
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 2 of 12

daughters of said Ramesh Chandra Dash relinquished
their respective shares in favour of their seven brothers
by a deed executed on 05.04.2019. Accordingly, the LRs
of said Ramesh Chandra Dash conveyed/transferred a
portion of the land from Plot No.60/139 in favour of the
present writ petitioner Nos.1 to 3 by executing Registered
Sale Deed Nos.11081904526, 11081904528 &
11081904505 on 05.04.2019 for land measuring
Ac.0.055 dec., Ac.0.034.5 dec. & Ac.0.034.5 dec.
respectively, out of total area of Ac.0.200 dec and,
accordingly, the possession thereof was delivered to the
writ petitioners, who applied for mutation in Mutation
Case No.16648 of 2022, but the aforesaid mutation case
was dropped on the ground that the entire land
measuring Ac.0.200 dec. was leasehold land and,
thereafter, the petitioners along with their vendors
preferred Mutation Appeal No.205 of 2024 before the
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar advancing the claim that Plot
No.60/139 was Stithiban land, but wrongly recorded as
Dakhal Satwa Sunya, however, the appeal was also
dismissed holding that the land had already been restored
to Government Khata No.62 (Anabadi) pursuant to
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 3 of 12

in Misc. Case
cancellation of the vendors’ lease
No.1445/2000 and, thereby, rendering the subsequent
sale transactions legally unsustainable. It is claimed by
the writ petitioners that neither the petitioners nor their
vendors had any knowledge of the alleged resumption of
land or cancellation of the lease nor was the deceased
father of the vendors served with any notice in this
regard, but the legality of alleged resumption or
cancellation along with incidental issue therein is under
challenge before this Court in D-W.P.(C) No.48021 of
2026.
2.1. It is the further claim of the petitioners that a
crematorium has existed on Plot No.23/128/2868 of
Mouza-Subuddhipur, Bhubaneswar for a considerable
period time and the local villagers are using the same,
but although the said land belongs to Government, it was
subsequently allotted along with the adjoining plots
measuring a total area of Ac.5.426 dec. to Eutopia
Realtors Private Limited through Bhubaneswar
Development Authority (BDA) and, thereby, restricting
the villagers access to the said crematorium, but due to
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 4 of 12

objection of local villagers, the GA & PG Department
instructed the Deputy Commissioner (Land),
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) to relocate the
crematorium to a suitable alternative location and
pursuant to such instruction, the Secretary, BDA on
17.02.2026 proceeded for a joint demarcation to identify
a suitable alternative site for relocating the crematorium
situated over Plot No.23/128/2868 of Mouza-
Subuddhipur, Bhubaneswar and, accordingly, a suitable
alternative site was identified over Plot No.60 under
Khata No.62 situated in Mouza-Subuddhipur,
Bhubaneswar for an area measuring Ac.0.302 dec. out of
total area of Ac.1.870 dec. and, accordingly, an order was
passed to the said effect by the Zonal Commissioner, I/C
(South-West Zone), BMC, Bhubaneswar. It is claimed that
the petitioners had asserted objection to the proposed
construction of crematorium on the identified land, which
is adjacent to their land, but despite the objection raised
by the petitioners, the authority concerned proceeded
forcibly to oust the petitioners and started digging up
portions of land for the construction of the proposed
crematorium without addressing their grievances, which
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 5 of 12

forced the petitioners to approach this Court in W.P.(C)
No.22295 of 2026, which was disposed of granting liberty
to the petitioners to file representation before the

authority, but as their grievances remained unredressed,
the petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.28186 of 2026, wherein this Court issued notice and
directed the parties to maintain status quo as on
03.09.2026 qua the construction over Plot No.60/140. In
this backdrop of above averments and factual matrix, the
petitioners have sought for the relief indicated supra .
3. This Court has already heard Mr. Goutam
Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, who is being
assisted by Mr. Abhishek Nair, learned Advocate for the
petitioners and Mr. Swarup Kumar Patnaik, learned
Advocate for OPNo.5 and Mr. Jayant Kumar Khandayat
Ray, learned ASC in the matter on the maintainability of
the Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned Senior
Advocate in support of claim of maintainability of the Writ
Petition submits that the undisputed fact is that the
petitioners are the owners in possession of the land under
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 6 of 12

Plot No.60/139 of Khata No.61/12, but the authority
concerned are proceeding to construct and developed a
crematorium on the adjoining land of aforesaid plot of the
petitioners, however, the petitioners have right to protect
their possession and enjoyment over their own landed
properties under Article 300-A of Constitution of India.
Mr. Mukherjee further submits that when the
constitutional right of the petitioners to enjoy their
property is infringed by the proposed construction of
crematorium adjoining to their land, a Writ Petition would
squarely lie to redress the grievance of the petitioners,
since both the land of the petitioners and crematorium
are adjacent to each other and how come the authority
would construct the crematorium by the side of a
residential land of the petitioners and that too,
encroaching upon the said land. Mr. Mukherjee further
submits that the title of the petitioners to the property
cannot be disputed on account of a wrong order passed
by the authority for resumption of the land with
cancellation of lease and that too, without hearing the
parties in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 7 of 12

Accordingly, Mr. Mukherjee prays to admit the Writ and
issue notice to the OPs.
5. In resisting the claim of the petitioners, Mr.
Swarup Kumar Patnaik, learned Advocate for OPNo.5
submits that the basis of acquisition of title over the
disputed land/purchased land of the petitioners by the
original recorded tenant Ramesh Chandra Dash was
lease, but such lease having been already cancelled with
resumption of land to the Government, no valid title
could devolve upon the petitioners to raise any dispute
over the land in question and, thereby, the claim of the
writ petitioners raises disputed question of facts, which
cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction and,
thereby, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, Mr. Patnaik prays to dismiss the Writ Petition
as not maintainable.
6. Mr. Jayant Kumar Khandayat Ray, learned ASC
not only reiterates the submission as advanced by Mr.
Swarup Kumar Patnaik, learned counsel for OPNo.5, but
also submits that the claim of the writ petitioners requires
a thorough adjudication on the basis of pleading and
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 8 of 12

evidence to be led by the parties and, thereby, the Writ
Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, Mr. Ray prays to
dismiss the Writ Petition as not maintainable.

7. After having considered and evaluated the
competing submissions upon perusal of record, the prayer
as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners in the Writ
petition itself discloses the relief to restrain the OPs from
carrying out further construction of the crematorium or
ploughing or excavating or other activities over the Plot
No.60/139 of Khata No.61/12 of Mouza-Subudhipur,
Tahasil-Bhubaneswar, District-Khordha measuring
Ac.0.200 decimals and maintaining of status quo with
respect to said properties. A careful scrutiny of the
averments raised by the petitioners in the Writ petition, it
appears that the land in question is already resumed by
the Additional Tahasildar and the record of rights of the
land in question under Plot No.60/139 measuring
Ac.0.200 dec. and Plot No.13 measuring Ac.0.565 dec. of
Khata No.61/12 have been merged with Government
Khata No.62, but such order having not yet been
reversed by any competent authority, the dispute in this
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 9 of 12

case thereby traces back to its foundation on resumption
of land of the property in question. In addition, the
Sarpanch of Tamando Gram Panchayat being added as
OPNo.5 seriously resists the claim of the petitioners and
the relief claimed in the Writ Petition requires proper
adjudication on the basis of rival claims supported by
evidence, but Writ Petition can be adjudicated on the
basis of admitted facts. No doubt, the petitioners have
initiated series of litigations, but that would not come to
their aid to seek remedy in a Writ Petition involving
complex & disputed question of facts. The record reveals
that the lease which formed the root of the Petitioners’
title was already cancelled over two decades ago in Misc.
Case No. 1445/2000, and the land has already been
restored to the State's Anabadi Khata
8. The prayer as advanced by the petitioners not
only raises serious and complex disputed question of facts,
but also the writ petitioners seek for adjudication of a
dispute involving claim of title over the plot in question
with incidental relief thereto, so also for adjudication of the
boundary dispute adjoining the plot proposed to be
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 10 of 12

allocated for crematorium in the village. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioners claim relief qua a private plot
by impleading the Government functionaries as Opposite
Parties, but the impletion of Sarpanch of Tamando Gram
Panchayat as OPNo.5 itself suggests that the dispute is not
simple and it cannot be adjudicated without pleading and
evidence. It, therefore, appears to this Court that the
petitioners have sought for civil remedy by invoking the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the garb of writ
jurisdiction, which ordinarily is not available for
adjudication in serious and disputed question of facts. It is
a well-settled principle of jurisprudence that where a
dispute primarily hinges upon highly contested questions
of civil title and factual possession, the proper remedy lies
before a competent Civil Court, rather than a Writ Court
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. On a careful scrutiny
of the averments and keeping in view the claim of the writ
petitioners on the basis of admitted facts, it appears that
the writ petitioners raise a serious dispute for adjudication
of title as well as de jure possession of the petitioners over
the land in question, which can only be adjudicated in a
Civil Court, but not in a Writ petition in exercise of writ
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 11 of 12

jurisdiction. Law is well settled that the writ jurisdiction
cannot be transformed into a substitute for a civil suit
when the very bedrock of the Petitioner's title is

compromised. Consequently, since the Petitioners' legal
title to the land is highly disputed and currently lacks
statutory recognition in the revenue records, this Court
finds no merit in entertaining the present Writ petition
under Article 226/227
9. In the result, the Writ Petition being not
maintainable in the present form stands dismissed.
Needless to say, it is open for the petitioners to redress
their grievances before the Civil Court, if so advised.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge








Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 16 day of October, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 22:20:58
W.P.(C) No.33816 of 2026 Page 12 of 12