Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Rokkam Bharatiamma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.11931 of 2024
Decided On : 31-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the writ petition and its background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. summary of arguments from counsel. (Para 2) |
| 3. analysis of the legality of the impugned order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion and order regarding the writ petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
Judgment :
A.C. Behera, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, two revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
The OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner in this writ petition challenging the final order dated 06.08.2019 passed in OLR Appeal No.2 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi arising out of the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6).
The husband of the petitioner i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao had filed OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) challenging the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175/1975 by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6).
Accordingly, two revision cases vide OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 & OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of same case vide OLR (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 were pending before the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3).
When, during the pendency of the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022, the petitioner thereof i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao expired on dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner along with her sons were substituted in the said OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2022 in place of the deceased husband of the petitioner as per order dated 12.10.2022.
The Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati (O.P. No.3) dropped to the OLR (Ceiling) Revision Case No.01 of 2019 filed by the widow petitioner (R. Bharatiamma) as per the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) assigning the reasons that,
“when the petitioner of the revision i.e. R. Bharatiamma being the widow of R. Kamalakar Rao along with her two sons have already substituted in place of the deceased petitioner in Revision Case No.1 of 2022 i.e. R. Kamalakar Rao, then this Revision Case No.1 of 2019 filed by the R. Bharatiamma as divorcee of R. Kamalakar Rao is dropped.”
4. The above cryptic impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (O.P. No.3) purely on a technical ground i.e. on the ground of substitution of the petitioner in (Ceiling) Case No.175 of 1975 in place of the deceased petitioner of the anything about the legality and propriety of the impugned order (which was under challenge in that OLR Ceiling Revision Case No.1 of 2019) cannot be sustainable under law.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i). In a case between Surendra Kumar Jain Vs. Santobai & Another reported in (2025) INSC (SC) 230 at Para No.12 that, an order must not be passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reason and must reflect the application of mind.
(ii). In a case between C. Saravana Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai & Another decided in WP(C) No.25723 of 2008 & M.P. No.2 of 2008 (Mad.) at Para No.5 that, the act of passing a cryptic order itself amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
(iii). In a case between State of Uttarakhand a
AI
Judicial orders must not be cryptic and should reflect proper reasoning; dismissing a revision due to technical grounds violates natural justice principles.
The scope of a Revisional Court's review is limited to legality and propriety of orders, not merits; failure to address key legal issues renders such orders unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned order and appropriate exercise of mind in deciding original proceedings, as well as the availability of clear statut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the Statute under which it d....
The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to a party in the proceedings contravenes the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
The court reaffirmed that all parties must be given the opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings to uphold natural justice principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, and the court's consideration of the maintainability ....
The court reinforced that orders must respect natural justice principles, requiring that all parties are given an opportunity to be heard; failure results in legal invalidity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
