ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.1781 of 2024

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Subhasish Sahoo & Others

… Petitioners.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel.

(For the State)

Mr. S.S. Dash, Adv.

(For Opp. Party Nos.4 to 12)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 28.10.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the entire proceedings of R.P. No.261 of 2021 pending before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2), on being filed by the Opp. Party Nos.4 to 12 of this writ petition on the ground that, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) has issued notice in the R.P. Case No.261 of 2021 to the Opp. Parties thereof (petitioners in this writ petition) for hearing of the said R.P. No.261 of 2021 on merit without issuing any notice for condonation of delay in filing of that R.P. No.261 of 2021, although, that R.P. No.261 of 2021 under Section 15(b) was filed 35 years after the publication of the final R.o.R and also on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the case land.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.4 to 12.

3. As per the provisions of law envisaged under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, the final R.o.R can be challenged by any of the aggrieved party/parties within one year of its publication and if, the same is challenged after one year of its publication before the Revisional Court, then, as per law, it should be the first duty of the Revisional Authority to pass order in respect of the delay in filing of the same for its condonation and if the delay is condoned, then, to decide the same on merit.

4. Here in this matter at hand, when the revision vide R.P. Case No.261 of 2021 was filed by the Opp. Party Nos.4 to 12 of this writ petition under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 after 35 years of the final publication of the R.o.R of the case land to challenge the same, then, at this juncture, it was the duty of the Revisional Court in R.P. No.261 of 2021 for passing necessary order first on the point of limitation, but the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) without taking any recourse for passing any order in respect of condonation of delay, proceeded to hear the Revision Petition No.261 of 2021 on merit by issuing notices to the petitioners in this writ petition, which is not in conformity with the law.

For which, the issuance of notices vide Annexures-6 & 8 in R.P. No.261 of 2021 to the Opp. Parties thereof (petitioners in this writ petition) by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) for hearing of that R.P. No.261 of 2021 on merit without taking any step for passing order in respect of condonation of delay, the said notices vide Annexures-6 & 8 issued to the petitioners of this writ petition in R.P. No.261 of 2021 for hearing of that R.P. No.261 of 2021 on merit cannot be sustainable under law.

So, the issuance of notices vide Annexures-6 & 8 to the Opp. Parties (Petitioners in this writ petition) in that R.P. No.261 of 2021 by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) for hearing of that R.P. Case No.261 of 2021 on merit is to be quashed.

5. Therefore, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same is to be allowed in part.

6. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.

7. The issuance of notices vide Annexures-6 & 8 to the Opp. Parties of R.P. No.261 of 2021 (petitioners in this writ petition) by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack (Op