IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1594 of 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Manorama Acharya @ Tripathy …. Petitioners and another -versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. B. Bhuyan, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. T.K. Mohanty, Advocate. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing and Judgment :06.11.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) on the ground of non-providing of opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and passing of the impugned order against the petitioners by the O.P. No.2 without complying the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 and learned ASC for the State.

3. The petitioners in this writ petition were the O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g)

in the Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 before the O.P. No.2.

4. It appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-5 that, “O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g) (petitioners in this writ petition) were found absent on the date of passing of the impugned order and for which, the O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g) (petitioners in this writ petition) were set ex parte and thereafter, the impugned order against the O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g) in the Consolidation Revision No.170 of

2015 (petitioners in this writ petition) was passed.”

5. It is the settled propositions of law that, the Appellate or Revisional Court cannot set the appellant/petitioner or respondent/Opp. Parties ex parte and fix the matter for ex parte hearing.

6. When the impugned order reveals that, the O.P. No.2 has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-5 in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 setting the O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g) (petitioners in this writ petition) ex parte and when as per law the Revisional Court i.e. O.P. No.2 should not have set the O.P. Nos.2(a) to 2(g) (petitioners in this writ petition) ex parte, then at this juncture, it is held that, the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) was not inconformity with law.

For which, the impugned order passed by the O.P. No.2 in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 is liable to be quashed.

As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

The same is to be allowed.

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.

The impugned order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.

No.2) is quashed (set aside).

The matter vide Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to decide the same afresh as per law within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties in full compliance of the principles of natural justice.

8. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) in Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 on dated 17.11.2025 and to produce the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of O.P. No.2 as to further proceedings of the said Consolidation Revision No.170 of 2015 as to the further proceeding of the said Revision.

9. As such, this writ pet