1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 13504 of 2026 Md. Asif and Anr `…. Petitioners Represented by Mr. B.Sahoo, Advocate -Versus - State of Odisha & Ors …. Opposite Parties Represented by Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 06.05.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur in Consolidation Revision Case No. 3 of 2025. The present petitioners were Opposite Party Nos. 7 and 8 in the said revision. 3. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to Paragraph-3 of the impugned order which is reproduced below: “The Parties as per the Plaint petition have been duly noticed. SR back. The opposite parties 1 to 6 are absent on call. Opposite party No 7 & 8 appeared through their Advocate. They stated that they have no objection if the RoR is corrected sequentially as per the date of purchase. It is to be mentioned here that the Tahasildar should be the only Opposite Party as the correction of RoR is the main contention of the plaint. So it is immaterial whether any party appears or not.” Order No. 01. 2 | P a g e Mr. Sahoo submits that the observation recorded in the impugned order to the effect that Opposite Party Nos. 7 and 8 have no objection if the ROR is corrected sequentially as per the date of purchase is completely erroneous and not correct, inasmuch as the petitioners had never instructed their counsel to make such concession. 4. Learned State counsel submits that in such event, the petitioners ought to have approached the revisional authority by filing appropriate application for recall, which could have been considered on its own merit. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law decided in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs. R.S. Nayak & Anr reported in 1982 (2) SCC 483, this Court is of the considered view that whether the observation referred above was beyond the instructions submitted by the petitioner to their counsel or not is essentially a matter of fact to be considered and decided by the revisional Court. This Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction can hardly enter into such factual controversy. 6. The writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the revisional Court again by filing appropriate application supported by affidavit within two weeks from today. If such application is submitted, the same shall be considered on its own merit after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned. This Court makes it clear that in case, the revisional Court is satisfied that the concession as above was made without 3 | P a g e express authorization of the petitioners, he shall recall his order and hear the revision afresh. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Deepak