IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.36726 of 2025

Japa Gram Panchayat,

Si l

…. Petitioner

Represented through its Sarpanch

Bidulata Rout

Mr. S. K. Nayak (2), Advocate

-Ver sus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

05.01.2026 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 25^th November, 2025 at Annexure-6 passed in connection with Misc. Case No.1 of

2025 by opposite party No.3 on the grounds stated.

3. In view of Annexure-4, the petitioner challenged the decision of opposite party No.3 vis-à-vis auction in respect of the Joras and had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.26069 of 2025 disposed of on 20^th September, 2025 vide Annexure-5 with a direction to the said authority to hear him and to consider the necessity of the public auction for the financial year taking a decision in accordance with Rule 48(3) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Rules’) and it was followed by the impugned order at Annexure-6.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned decision dated 25^th November, 2025 is a cryptic one without any such satisfaction reached at regarding the income derived from the property in question. The submission is that opposite party No.3 reproduced the relevant provision and quoted the order of this Court i.e. Annexure-5 and finally concluded that the income of the Joras is inadequate without conducting any enquiry as statutorily mandated under Rule 48(3) of the Rules and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State justifies the impugned order dated 25^th November, 2025 at Annexure-6 with the submission that upon a subjective satisfaction arrived at by opposite party No.3 with the conclusion that income from the property is inadequate, decision has been taken to put the Joras to auction, hence, there is no illegality and instead due compliance of Rule 48(3) of the Rules. Alternatively, it is submitted that since there is already an auction, Rule 48 of the Rules shall not apply. In response to the above, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such earlier auction was fructified. It is, however, informed to the Court that the auction for the financial year 2021 was challenged by the then Sarpanch of the GP and it was stayed and in so far as the auction in question is concerned, it is for the financial year, 2025-2026 but before that, opposite party No.3 was required to ascertain the income from the Joras with an enquiry.

6. Recording the submission of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner that the property involved was never auctioned even, though, such auction was proposed in 2021 and of learned counsel for the State and having regard to the fact that a decision to auction the same has been taken by opposite party No.3 which is presently under challenge with the plea that there has been non-compliance of Rule 48(3) of the Rules, the Court is of the humble view that any such decision towards auction is depended on the satisfaction reached at to the effect that income out of the same is not adequate. On a bare reading of the impugned order at Annexure-6, the Court finds that the same does not reveal if an independent enquiry was conducted by opposite party No.3. It is only upon receiving information shared by the concerned BDO that opposite party No.3 has taken the decision to hold the auction. Such decision does not reflect upon any such materials necessary and considered, to find out and ascertain, the real income out of the property. The Court is of the conclusion that the Joras can be subjected to auction if opposite party No.3 reaches at a conclusion that the income therefrom is not adequate. The Court, finding no such discussion in the impugned order at Annexure-6 with