In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a long-standing land dispute involving Ananda Chandra Panda, now represented by his family members, against the Collector of Keonjhar. The judgment, delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on January 22, 2026, brings closure to a case that has been ongoing for over a decade.
The case started with a lawsuit filed by Ananda Chandra Panda in 1983. The lawsuit, known as T.S. No.16/1983, was initially rejected by the Sub-Judge in Anandpur on January 17, 1994. Ananda Chandra Panda then appealed to the District Judge in Keonjhar, who partially agreed with him on October 8, 1999. The court recognized Ananda Chandra Panda’s rights over Plot No.53 but rejected claims about Plot No.54.
After the appellate court’s decision, Ananda Chandra Panda tried to carry out the court's order regarding Plot No.53. The Civil Judge in Anandpur confirmed this on August 26, 2006, stating that the land was correctly handed over to Ananda Chandra Panda.
However, the Collector of Keonjhar filed a request in November 2006, claiming that the wrong plot, Plot No.54 instead of Plot No.53, was given to Ananda Chandra Panda. This request was initially accepted, leading to more legal battles.
The High Court of Orissa rejected Ananda Chandra Panda’s request against the Collector's claim on April 6, 2010. This led Ananda Chandra Panda’s family to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the Collector's claim was not valid because it was made after the court's order had already been carried out. The Court emphasized that such issues should be raised during the process, not after it is completed.
"All questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit," the Court noted.
The Supreme Court canceled the orders of the High Court and the Civil Judge, thereby ruling in favor of Ananda Chandra Panda’s family. The Court concluded that the Collector of Keonjhar, having initially raised no objections, could not challenge the execution after it was completed.
This decision highlights the importance of raising objections in a timely manner during legal proceedings and provides a resolution for Ananda Chandra Panda’s heirs regarding their rightful claim over the disputed land.
