The right to appeal is strictly a statutory right, and the absence of any specific provision for appeal in demarcation cases renders such appeals unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kandhamal, Phulbani in RMA No. 1 of 2025 (Demarcation) is under challenge in the present writ application.

2. Bereft of unnecessary facts, the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners in possession of the properties recorded in the settlement ROR under Khata No. 408 in Mouza Phulbani Sahi comprising of six plots, in all measuring Ac. 0.070 decimals. These properties are claimed to be their ancestral properties. Opposite Party No.6 is the adjacent landowner which she claims to have purchased vide RSDs dated 07.08.1991 and 08.08.1991 from Ashok Kumar Satapathy and Chapala Mohapatra respectively. She alleged that the petitioners wanted to grab a portion of her land and created disturbances. According to her, though the ROR was rightly published, the area of a plot of land in Hal Map was reduced in comparison to the Sabik Map. She therefore, approached the RDC (S.D.), Berhampur by filing a revision under Section 15 (b) of the OSS Act, which was allowed by order dated 04.06.2020, directing correction of the map. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties. During pendency of the revision, the Opposite Party No.6 filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Phulbani claiming title but the same was withdrawn on 10.10.2023. She thereafter, approached the Additional Tahasildar, Kandhamal for demarcation of the plots in question. In the meantime, the petitioners challenged the revisional order before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 25784 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 23.10.2024 directed the petitioners to approach the R.D.C (S.D.) Berhampur seeking recall of the impugned order and also directed status quo to be maintained in respect of the property. The petitioners filed application for recall being OSSARC No. 132 of 2024 for recall of order dated 04.06.2020, which is pending. At this stage, Opposite Party No.6 filed Demarcation Case No. 63 of 2025. The Additional Tahasildar, by order dated 23.07.2025 dropped the demarcation proceeding taking note of the pendency of the revision case. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No.6 approached the ADM in a purported appeal registered as RMA No. 1 of 2025. By the order impugned, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar in the Demarcation Misc Case.

3. Heard Mr. D. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Dash, learned AGA for the State and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.6. 4. Mr. Behera assails the impugned order by contending that there is no provision for filling appeal under the OSS Act or any other statute against the order passed in a demarcation case. The ADM assumed appellate jurisdiction and not only entertained the appeal but also allowed the same. Moreover, being directed by this Court in the earlier writ application, the petitioners have sought recall of the original order passed by the revisional authority and such application is pending.

5. Mr. Dash, learned AGA fairly concedes that there is no provision in the OSS Act for filling appeal against an order passed in a demarcation case.

6. Mr. T.K. Mishra, also fairly submits that the statute has not provided any remedy of appeal against the order passed in a demarcation case. He however, submits that the matter may be remanded to the ADM for consideration afresh on the point of maintainability.

7. The facts of the case are not disputed. Being granted liberty by this Court in the earlier writ application, the petitioners have filed application before the RDC for recall of the earlier order passed on 04.06.