IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2026 Abinash Routray & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Pradhan(3), Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 17.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioners, therefore, pray that your Lordships be pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to the opp. Party no. 3 to issue a legal heir certificate by quashing order as given under Annexure 4 and if the opposite parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute directing for issuance of the legal heir certificate in favour of the petitioners by quashing the order of the opp. Party no. 3 as given under Annexure 5 within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. And/or pass any other writ/writs, order/ orders the Hon'ble Court deed fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that on the death of the father of the Petitioners, legal heir certificate was issued under Annexure-3, showing the present Petitioners and the mother of the Petitioners as the legal heirs of their deceased father. 4.1. However, on the death of their mother, when Petitioners made a fresh application to issue another legal heir certificate showing the present Petitioners as the legal heirs, the same was rejected basing on the report submitted by the RI under Annexure-4. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that such a report was submitted by the RI by relying on the statement of some local people that the deceased father of the present Petitioners was having four sons. 4.3. It is contended that since on due verification and after the death of their father, legal heir certificate was issued under Annexure-3 by showing the Petitioners as the legal heirs along with their mother, after the death of their mother, the present Petitioners remained as the only legal heirs of the deceased parents and such a claim could not have been rejected, basing on a faulty report so submitted by the RI under Annexure-4. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision and by causing a fresh enquiry through the concerned Revenue Supervisor instead of the RI, who has submitted the report under Annexure-4. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has no serious objection to the course of action proposed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions, this Court finds that on the death of the father of the present Petitioners, legal heir certificate was issued under Annexure-3 by Opposite Party No.3 by showing the Petitioners and their late mother as the legal heirs. 6.1. After the death of their mother, when a fresh application was moved to issue the legal heir certificate by showing the present Petitioners as the legal heirs of their deceased parents, the same has been rejected, basing on the report submitted by the RI under Annexure-4. 6.2. This Court after going through the report of the R.I is of the view that concerned RI has submitted the report basing on some statement made by the local people. Since on the death of their father, Petitioners were issued with the certificate by showing the Petitioners and their mother as the legal heirs under Annexure-3, there was no occasion to reject the claim vide the impugned order dtd.23.12.2025 under Annexure-4. 6.3. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that basing on such faulty report of the concerned RI, claim of the Petitioners could not have been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.23.12.2025 so available under Annexure-4. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioners’ claim so made by Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.23.12.2025 under Annexure-4 in Application Reference No. E-LHC/2025/246425. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision by causing an enquiry through the Revenue Supervisor and decide the issue afresh with passing of a fresh order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6.5. However, while considering the claim of the Petitioners, relevancy and effect of the earlier legal heir certificate issued under Annexure-3 shall be taken into consideration, in its proper perspective. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat