SAROJINI NAIK @ HEMBRAM v. TAHASILDAR, RAIRANGPUR, MAYURBHANJ
WP(C)/8440/2026 · 2026-05-14
Sashikanta Mishra
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17092 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17092 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 8440 of 2026
Sarojini Naik @ Hembram & Ors. …. Petitioners
Represented by Mr. S.S. Chaini, Advocate -Versus – State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties
Represented by Mr. S.S.Routray, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 14.05.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records from the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties may be pleased to set-aside the orders passed under Annexures- 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by issuing appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions and may be pleased to dismiss the suo-moto ceiling proceeding No- 2 of 1996 initiated against the petitioners and this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the original Court, Appellate Court as well as the revisional Court. All the three Courts have concurrently rejected the case of the petitioners considering the facts and other grounds.
4. This Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction finds no reason to interfere, moreso as nothing has been demonstrated to justify
Order No.
01.
interference by this Court. It is trite law that the concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with by the writ Court except under exceptional circumstances. Needless to mention, no such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case. That apart, the impugned orders have been passed more than twenty-five years ago. No plausible explanation has been put forth to explain such inordinate delay.
5. Taking into consideration all the above facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Resultantly, the writ application stands dismissed.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge Pravakar