IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29204 of 2023 Hrusikesha Senapati .… Petitioner Represented by Mr.S. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N. Patnaik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 22.07.2026 Order No. 13. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that writ petition be admitted, the recorders be called for and after hearing the parties the impugned order as per Annexure-4 may kindly be quashed and W.P.(C) be allowed. Or any other order/orders, direction/directions may kindly be issued as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by observing that the lease case record is not available being unable to be traced out in the concerned Tahasil office. It is also stated in the report of the RI that the claim Page 1 of 2 regarding regular payment of rent by the petitioner is not supported by any documentary evidence available in the R.I. office.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, firstly, non-availability of the lease case record cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner is ready with the original ‘K’ form and certain rent receipts. These documents can be taken into consideration for whatever they are worth. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and by remitting the matter to the revisional authority to hear the revision afresh, after considering the original documents to be presented before him by the petitioner. It goes without saying that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and it shall be open to the revisional authority to make such inquiry as he may deem fit and proper to test the veracity of the documents to be submitted by the petitioner. It also goes without saying that it shall be open to both parties to raise all such points as are available to them in law. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Jul-2026 20:02:48 Page 2 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29204 of 2023 Hrusikesha Senapati .… Petitioner Represented by Mr.S. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N. Patnaik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 22.07.2026 Order No. 13. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that writ petition be admitted, the recorders be called for and after hearing the parties the impugned order as per Annexure-4 may kindly be quashed and W.P.(C) be allowed. Or any other order/orders, direction/directions may kindly be issued as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by observing that the lease case record is not available being unable to be traced out in the concerned Tahasil office. It is also stated in the report of the RI that the claim Page 1 of 2 regarding regular payment of rent by the petitioner is not supported by any documentary evidence available in the R.I. office.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, firstly, non-availability of the lease case record cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner is ready with the original ‘K’ form and certain rent receipts. These documents can be taken into consideration for whatever they are worth. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and by remitting the matter to the revisional authority to hear the revision afresh, after considering the original documents to be presented before him by the petitioner. It goes without saying that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and it shall be open to the revisional authority to make such inquiry as he may deem fit and proper to test the veracity of the documents to be submitted by the petitioner. It also goes without saying that it shall be open to both parties to raise all such points as are available to them in law. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Jul-2026 20:02:48 Page 2 of 2