IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10825 of 2026 Kiran Kumari Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. The Revision Petition being R.P. Case No.1773 of 2014 was filed before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack under Section 15 (b) of Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 which came to be disposed of by Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack by order dated 26.12.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the Revision Case being O.S.S. Case No.907 of 2025 for effecting correction of Revenue Map (Hal) before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. 2. Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Rout, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.1, Bhubaneswar. It is submitted that though the petitioner filed the Revision Case before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, the record has been transferred to the Camp Court at Bhubaneswar without her knowledge. Therefore, she could not appear before the authority concerned on the date fixed. It is also submitted that serious prejudice would ensue if the Revision Petition is not restored to file for adjudication on merit. 3. Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Addl. Government Advocate has no serious objection to the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr. Soumya Mishra along with Ms. Sakshi Rout, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State. 5. Perusal of record, it is revealed from the certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the Addl. Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.1, Bhubaneswar as enclosed with the writ petition reveals that, the following order is passed on 12.11.2025: “The case is received from Court of the Hon’ble Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack on dt.17.09.2025. Accordingly, the case is taken up today. The Sr. Standing Counsel is present. Neither the petitioner nor his/her counsel is present on repeated calls. Case is posted to 11.12.2025.” 6. However, on subsequent date, i.e., 01.12.2025, the matter was not taken up and the matter stood adjourned to 15.12.2025. The record of proceeding does not transpire that the petitioner was intimated with respect to said adjourned date for participating in the hearing. On 15.12.2025, the following order is passed: “This case is taken up today. The Sr. Standing Counsel is present. Neither the petitioner nor the counsel for the petitioner is present on repeated calls. Heard and gone through the case record. It reveals that the petitioner as well as the counsel for the petitioner was absent in the court 3 times consecutively i.e. on dt.12.11.2025, 01.12.2025 and also today. As a result, there is no record of the flow of title in favour of the petitioner. Being invariably absent in the court, the petitioner as well as the counsel are restoring delaying tactics and thereby misleading the court. This is a clear case of laches on the part of the petitioner. Hence, this case is dismissed for default. This case can only be restored in the presence of the petitioner with original ID proof to establish bonafideness and to prevent fraud.” 7. It is evident from the record that the notice of hearing intimating the date of appearance has not been communicated to the petitioner. Such fact is not emanating from the docket note of the order sheet. This Court does not find any endorsement of the petitioner having noted the date of posting of the matter on 15.12.2025. 8. Under the above premise, this Court finds there is violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner is denied of personal hearing. This Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 15.12.2025 and restore the Revision Case being O.S.S. Case No.907 of 2025 to file. The petitioner and/or her authorized representative shall furnish copy of this order before the concerned authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.1, Bhubaneswar so that the authority concerned within a period of seven days and upon her appearance, the authority shall intimate the date of posting of hearing of the matter to the petitioner. Needless to say, the Additional Commissioner shall pass appropriate order(s) in O.S.S. Case No.907 of 2025 after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the documents, if any, that may be produced by the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Designation: Secretary