p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11933 of 2026 Ranjit Das and another …. Petitioners Mr. Ramani Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 23.04.2026 01. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the notice issued by the Tahasildar, Jajpur, the mother of the petitioners appeared in connection with Bebandabasta Case No.1023 of 2001 and as a consequence thereto upon verification, the Tahasildar recorded finding that the mother of the petitioners has been in a peacefully possession over the land in question. Accordingly, the Record- of-Right vide Annexure-1 reflects the name of mother of the petitioners, which stands with the status as Bebandabasta. 1.1. Referring to the copy of death certificate of the mother and the legal heir certificate showing that the petitioners are legal heirs of Smt. Pratima Kumari Das, he submitted that the authority concerned should have recorded the names and corrected the Record-of-Right. Since grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, the doors of this Court is knocked with the following prayer(s): “The petitioners, therefore, pray that your lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue p. 2 writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction and direct the Opp. Party No.5 for issuance of the correction ROR in favour of the petitioners. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently opposed for issue of such direction to the Tahasildar for incorporating the names of the legal heirs with the status as prayed for. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the Tahasildar vide order dated 30th November, 2005 in Bebandabasta Case No.1023 of 2001 observed that the mother of the petitioner was in possession over the schedule property and her name appears in the Record of Right vide Annexure-1. 5. Without entering into any factual controversy and without expressing any opinion touching upon the merit of the matter, it is felt that interest of justice would be best sub-served, if the petitioners, if they are so advised, approach the Tahasildar, Jajpur-opposite party no.5 along with proper application along with copy of this order and relevant and related documents within a period of seven days from today, the said authority shall consider the same and dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. Page 3 of 3 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER