##PAGE1##

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.37000 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

***

Srinivas Pathisharma ………. Petitioner …

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others …… Opposite Parties …

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. L.Pradhan, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G.Mohanty, Standing Counsel

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 24.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 24.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

Page 1 of 4.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the

petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Baliapal

(Opp. Party No.3) to receive the application for

Demarcation, if filed by the petitioner, because, the

Tahasildar, Baliapal (Opp. Party No.3) orally refused to

receive the application for Demarcation of the petitioner.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning refusal of the Tahasildar to

receive an application for Demarcation submitted by a

party like the petitioner has already been clarified in the

ratio of the following decision:

I.

In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs.

District Magistrate & Others reported in

2025 (3) Civ.C.C. (Allh.) 159 that, if any

party files an application before any authority

or Court, the authority or Court cannot orally

refuse to accept that application, but, as per

law, he is to receive the same and to register

the same as a case as per law and then, to

proceed with the same for passing necessary

order as per law, but, any authority or Court

cannot orally refuse to receive the application

of a party.

4. Here in this matter at hand, when the Tahasildar,

Baliapal (Opp. Party No.3) orally refused to receive the

application for Demarcation of the petitioner, then, in

Page 2 of 4.

view of the principles of law clarified in the ratio of the

aforesaid decision, the above conduct of the Tahasildar,

Baliapal (Opp. Party No.3) i.e. his oral refusal to receive

the application for Demarcation of the petitioner is not in

conformity with the law. For which, necessary direction

can be issued to the Tahasildar, Baliapal (Opp. Party

No.3) to receive the application for Demarcation of the

petitioner, if presented by him (petitioner).

5. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner

is allowed.

6. The Tahasildar, Baliapal (Opp. Party No.3) is

directed to receive the application for Demarcation, if

filed by the petitioner annexing the certified copy of this

Judgment for its registration and after registration of

the same, the Tahasildar, Baliapal (Opp. Party No.3)

shall dispose of the said Demarcation Case within a

period of 1 month from the date of its registration

following the guidelines/circular issued by the

Government of Odisha vide Notification No.38869

dated 13.12.2016

Page 3 of 4.

7. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 18 .12. 2025// Binayak Sahoo

Jr. Stenographer

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO

Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 26-Dec-2025 12:35:43

Page 4 of 4.