Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24935 of 2025 Chandrakala Mohanty & Ors. ..... Petitioners Mr. Chitta Ranjan Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Parties Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 24.09.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has made the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why the order passed by the Collector, Koraput as under Annexure-4 shall not be given effect to for the purpose of settlement in favour of the petitioners and necessary mutation shall not be made in their names. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:00:35 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 3. And if the opposite parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute; And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioners and their predecessors who claim to have been in continuous possession of the schedule property for about 30 years have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 03.08.1988 passed by the learned A.D.M., Koraput in O.P.L.E. Revision No. 15 of 1987. The present petitioners being the son and daughters of Late Laxmi Rajam Guru, after death of their mother on 06.02.2022 came to court by the strength of a will executed by the deceased wife of late E.Subba Rao. Since the petitioners have no homestead land in the State or in the local District and they came before this Court under Article 19(1)E and 21 of Constitution of India and since the right to property is a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away without legal sanction. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and on going through the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:00:35 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.02.1980 passed by the Collector, Koraput vide Annexure-4 before such a long period, the Petitioners had undergone slumber sleep and suddenly woke up to challenge the order in the year 2025. In such premises, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali