CUTTACK, India, June 13 -- Orissa High Court issued the following Judgement on May 12:

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners in this writ petition assail the order dated 5th January, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners draws attention to the impugned order dated 5th January, 2023 (Annexure-1) and submits that an order of status quo has been passed without any application filed by any of the parties. Further, the Petitioners were not provided with any opportunity of hearing to defend their case. 3.1. It is his submission that in the impugned order under Annexure-1 the Member, Board of Revenue observed that the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Collector, Khordha (the Petitioner therein) prayed for passing an order of status quo to prevent further transaction of the land involved in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017. Neither any application to that effect was filed nor were the Petitioners provided with an opportunity of hearing. A cryptic order was passed by the Member, Board of Revenue to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question and it was also directed that no further sale, purchase, transactions and correction of RoRs are to be made till disposal of the revision. It is his submission that the impugned order is not supported by any reason. The same is also violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.

3.2. It is further submitted that one of the Opposite Parties, namely, Tarakanta Samal (Opposite Party No.39 therein) and M/s. Z Engineers and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 8 therein) in OEA Revision Case No.07 of 2017 challenging the self-same order had filed W.P.(C) No.22392 of 2023, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 24th September, 2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder.

10. Insofar as this Petitioner-Company is concerned; they having purchased the property measuring Ac.1.160 decimals have taken all the required approval from the concerned Authorities and put up multi-storied building. In the meantime, the Petitioner-Company has sold several flats to different persons by executing registered sale deeds on receipt of consideration and those persons are in occupation of their respective purchased flats as the owners.

For the foregoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances, further keeping in view of section 38-B of the OEA Act, we are of the view that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass any such interim order affecting the rights over the property before finally deciding the Revision, which in the present case has been filed after fifty-five years since that vesting order, which has been filed before the Authorities on earlier occasions.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv0XlDnAmlZpJVlueYll8VV6Zij9ZxuAwcfR0cAC%2Fso9U&caseno=WP(C)/11608/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010271252026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.