p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17889 of 2025 Sukanta Palei …. Petitioner Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate. -Versus – State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A.R. Dash, AGA Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 3 to 6 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 18.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Dash, learned AGA for the State. 3. None appears for opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 on repeated calls. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack. It appears that the petitioner, desiring demarcation of his land submitted application leading to registration of Mutation Case No. 298 of 2024. However, on the date of demarcation, there being strong opposition by the boundary tenants, the Additional Tahasildar rejected the prayer of the petitioner with advice to take shelter in the proper Court of law. 5. This Court is surprised a statutory authority can express such Order No. 06. p. 2 helplessness at the objection/obstruction raised by a boundary tenant. This amounts to acting contrary to the statutory mandate, which cannot be countenanced in law. Moreover, if there is apprehension of any trouble during demarcation, necessary police help/assistance can always be sought for and obtained. The Additional Tahasildar while adjudicating a case for demarcation is not supposed to exercise advisory jurisdiction so as to advise the petitioner to approach the proper Court of law, while himself not discharging his statutory obligation. The impugned order cannot therefore, be sustained. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Tahasildar for disposal of the demarcation case afresh after following the necessary formalities. 7. The demarcation case shall be completed expeditiously. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge A.K. Rana Designation: P.A.