Orissa High Court
Laxman Rohidas vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Parties on 27 April, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 6527 of 2026
1.
Laxman Rohidas …. Petitioners
2. Biranchi Patel (since
dead)
3. Bhojaraj Rohidas
4. Arjun Rohidas
5. Hemanta Rohdas
6. Jasmin Kumar Rohidas
7. Santosh Kumar Patel
8. Dillip Kumar Patel
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties
represented by the
Principal Secretary to
Govt., Department of
Panchayati Raj and
Drinking Water, Lok Seba
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
2. The Collector, Jharsuguda
3. The Block Development
Officer, Kolabira,
Jharsuguda
4. The Sarpanch of
Samasingha Gram
Panchayat
5. Maa Sarawati SHG
represented by its
Secretary, Jharsuguda
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P. No.4)
Mr. P.K. Pradhan, Advocate (O.P. No.5)
Page 1 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27.04.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and
learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 4 & 5.
1. The Petitioners claiming to be farmers of
Belmunda have filed this writ petition assailing the
notice at Annexure-3 by which the Opposite Party
No.4-the Sarpanch of Samasingha Gram Panchayat
restrained the use of water from Samasingha Bada
Kata (Belmunda Kata) dated 12.02.2026. The
notice at Annexure-3 is extracted hereunder:-
Page 2 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
2. The relief sought for by the Petitioners is
extracted hereunder:-
“The petitioner most respectfully prays that
the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased
to allow the writ petition, issue a writ or
direction in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ or direction quashing
Notice No. 18 dated 12.02.2026 of the
Sarpanch of Samasingha Grama Panchayat
under Annexure-3 and further issue a writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or direction to Opp.
Party Nos. 2 to 5 to allow the petitioners to
take water from Belmunda Kata
(Samasingha Bada Kata) Water Reservoir for
irrigation of the Rabi Crop, 2026 and pass
such other or further order or orders as are
deemed just and proper.”
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners, Mr. Mohanty that water from the said
Samasingha Bada Kata (Belmunda Kata) is
necessary for Rabi crop cultivated by the farmers
and restraining them from using the water will
result in irreparable loss.
4. The brief facts germane for adjudication is
that since farmers were restrained from availing
water facility from the said Samasingha Bada Kata
(Belmunda Kata) for irrigation of their Rabi crop in
2024, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.6952 of 2024.
Page 3 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
This Court by order dated 28.03.2024
disposed of the said writ petition with the following
direction:-
“Considering such grievance of the
Petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Block Development Officer, Kolabira
(O.P. No.3) to consider and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4
dated 26th February 2024, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. The BDO is further directed to consider
immediate release of water (within one week) from
the reservoir to the farm lands of present
Petitioners keeping in view the ensuing Summer.”
5. And, the BDO pursuant to the order of this
Court considering the competing claims, after
detailed discussion with the Petitioners in the said
writ petition, Opposite Party No.4-Sarpanch of
Samasingha Gram Panchayat and Opposite Party
No.5-Maa Saraswati SHG, lessee, in whose favour
the highest bid was settled from 01.07.2023 to
30.06.2028 unanimously took the following
decisions:-
“After detail discussion with the Petitioners
present, Sarpanch Samasingha, SHGPage 4 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
members and other Government Officials it
was unanimously decided to safeguard the
interest of the dependent cultivators of the
nearby farmland along with pisciculture
which is one major source of internal income
of the Gram Panchayat and following
resolutions were passed to avoid any dispute
in future.
1. Before Rabi season the list of farmers
along with areas of cultivation to be finalized
basing on the water bearing capacity of the
Kata with joint verification of Agriculture,
Fishery and Revenue Staff with the initiation
of Sarpanch Samasingha GP. So that
irrigation of the farmland along with
pisciculture will not suffer.
2. The President, Secretary and other group
members of Maa Saraswati SHG,
Samasingha present in the meeting also
agreed to release water in future for
cultivation and will not create dispute in the
matter. Any dispute arising in the matter
amicably settled by the said committee of
Agriculture, Fishery and Revenue Officials
under the chairmanship of Sarpanch
Samasingha.”
(Emphasized)
6. It is stated that violating the said decision,
unilaterally Annexure-3 has been issued thereby
affecting the Petitioners right to livelihood.
Page 5 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
7. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioners that referring to the ROR
at Annexure-1 that Belmunda Kata is under the
Rakhit Khata of Government of Odisha and relying
on Section 54 of the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959,
submits that State has the authority to earmark the
land as irrigation source and it is his further
submission that ex-facie, the agreement entered
into between the Opposite Party No.4-Sarpanch of
Samasingha Gram Panchayat and Opposite Party
No.5-Maa Saraswati SHG (lessee) is against the
provisions as contained in Rule 48(2) of the Odisha
Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 in as much as the
same is not in terms of the statutory form-C
thereof, though the same is labelled as such.
And, referring to the same, it is submitted
that the order issued by the Sarpanch at Annexure-
3 on the ground that there is unauthorized use of
water from the Samasingha Bada Kata (Belmunda
Kata) is ex-facie without jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4
referring to the counter affidavit submits that the
list of the farmers in terms of the settlement on
which reliance is being placed by the Petitioners has
not been submitted and the representation annexed
as Annexure-4 to the additional affidavit of the
Page 6 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
Petitioner is a concocted document in as much as in
the said document stated to have been submitted
on 17.11.2025 does not contain the name of
Petitioner No.2 who died on 27.03.2026 and in fact
such list was created for the purpose of this case to
comply with the direction of this Court dated
16.03.2026.
Relevant extract of the said order is culled
out hereunder:-
“2. Referring to the instruction qua Rabi
season of financial year 2025-26, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Mohanty is
called upon to submit the list of farmers along
with areas of cultivation to the Sarpanch of
Samasingha Grama Panchayat and the same
also be placed on record by way of affidavit
before this Court.
3. xxxx.
4. The details of cultivators as indicated above
shall be submitted by 18.03.2026 after serving
a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the
State as well as learned counsel, Mr. P.K.
Mohanty for the Opposite Party No.4 who
undertakes to file vakalatnama in the
meanwhile.”
Hence, it is submitted that since the
condition precedent for seeking the water for farm
land have not been satisfied in terms of earlier
direction passed by this Court, the Petitioners do
Page 7 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
not have the cause of action to maintain the writ
petition.
9. The submissions of the learned counsel for
the State as well as learned counsel appearing for
the Opposite Party No.5, the lease holder relying
upon their respective counter affidavit is also to the
same effect.
10. The Petitioners has submitted rejoinder to
the counter affidavit, filed by the Opposite Parties.
11. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to
indicate that the representation annexed to the
affidavit has been submitted as per the consensus
reflected in Annexure-3 in obedience to the earlier
directions of this Court.
12. It does not stand to reason notwithstanding
the rancor relating to supply of water for irrigation
of Rabi crops raised by the Petitioners, they will not
submit any written representation. Claim to
handover a copy of such representation without any
acknowledgment thereof. Since submission of such
representation is being disputed and there is no
prima facie material to indicate that the same has
been submitted in the light of the stand taken by
the authorities, the same falls within the realm of
disputed questions of fact. Hence, cannot be taken
into account.
Page 8 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
13. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.4- the Sarpanch of Samasingha Gram Panchayat
has pointed out that in Annexure-4, it is stated that
total land requiring water for “Rabi crop” is stated
to be as Ac 20.680 whereas in paragraph-9 of the
writ petition, the area has been shown as Ac.15.00.
Hence, on account of contradictory statements
made, the claim of the Petitioners does not merit
consideration.
14. While taking the unanimous decision keeping
in view the competing claims of the stake holders,
the Opposite Party No.3-the Block Development
Officer, Kolabira was conscious of the fact that the
lessee in question is valid up to the year 2028.
15. The only ground on which the claim of the
Petitioners inter alia is being resisted is that the
steps in terms of submission of list of farmers along
with the area of cultivation have not been
submitted.
16. Paragraph-2 of the said unanimous decision
which is still in vogue and not disputed by the
Opposite Parties is extracted hereunder at the cost
of repetition:-
“2. The President, Secretary and other group
members of Maa Saraswati SHG,
Samasingha present in the meeting also
agreed to release water in future forPage 9 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
cultivation and will not create dispute in
the matter. Any dispute arising in the
matter amicably settled by the said
committee of Agriculture, Fishery and
Revenue Officials under the chairmanship of
Sarpanch Samasingha.”
(Emphasized)
17. Hence, on a conspectus of materials on
record, in the light of the Petitioners right under
Article 19(1)(g) & 21 of the constitution of India,
applying the doctrine of moulding of relief (Ref:
Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1792 SC
700) which inheres in this Court exercising plenary
jurisdiction, balancing equity inter se between the
parties, in the peculiar factual matrix of the case at
hand, this Court in the interest of justice is impelled
to direct the Petitioners to submit a list of farmers
along with the areas of cultivation afresh to the
Opposite Party No.3-the Block Development Officer,
Kolabira within a period of one week hence and on
receipt of the same, the Opposite Party No.3 shall
take a decision regarding the supply of water in the
light of the resolution at Annexure-3 which
admittedly still holds the field within a week of
submission of such representation (keeping in view
the urgency of requirement of water for the Rabi
crop), considering the claim of all the stake holders.
Page 10 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026
The decision so taken shall be communicated
to the Petitioners as well as the Opposite Parties.
18. The Opposite Party No.3-the Block
Development Officer, Kolabira shall take such
decision independently without being impeded or
hindered by the earlier decision of the Gram
Panchayat under Annexure-3.
For the reasons stated as above, the
operation of Annexure-3 shall abide by the fresh
decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition and the I.A(s)
stand disposed of. Costs made easy.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th April, 2026/Ayesha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUT
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Apr-2026 21:10:54
Page 11 of 11
W.P.(C) No.6527 of 2026