Orissa High Court
W.P.(C) No vs Unknown on 5 January, 2021
1 11272 of 2019
W.P.(C) No.
4. 05.01.2021 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken
up through Videoconferencing.
2. Heard Mr.Bijay Kumar Behera, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite
parties.
3. Petitioner, in this writ petition seeks to assail the
order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the
Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha,
Cuttack in Revision Petition Case No.624 of 2008,
wherein he directed to record the Hal plot No.656, Hal
Khata No.109 area Ac.0.47 decimal situated in Mouza
Mangalpur under Dasarathpur tahasil in the district of
Jajpur (for short, 'the case land') in favour of
Government in Anabadi Khata.
4. Mr.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that father of the petitioner is the purchaser of
the case land from the recorded tenant, namely, one
Debaki Nandan Samantsingh in whose name the land
was settled by the OEA Collector under Section 8(1) of
the OEA Act vide order dated 02.02.1966 passed in OEA
Case No.141 of 1966. During current settlement,
although the case land was recorded in the name of the
father of the petitioner, but the area was reduced to
Ac.0.470 decimal instead of Ac.0.630 decimal. Hence,
he had filed the revision under Section 15(b) of the
2
Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the
Act') for correction of area of plot No.656. It is his
submission that the Commissioner usurping his power
sat over the order passed by the OEA Collector passed
in OEA Case No.141 of 1966 and directed to record the
land in Government Khata under Anabadi status.
Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case
of Smt. Lily Nanda & two Others vrs State of
Odisha & Others reported in 2018 (I) OLR 559, he
submits that the Settlement Authority cannot sit over
the order of the OEA Collector and disturb the same. He
further submits that in a Revision under Section 15(b)
of the OSS Act, 1958 filed by the present petitioner, the
Commissioner could not have recorded the case land
in Government Khata, as it has already been recorded
in favour of the father of the petitioner under Hal Khata
No.109 during settlement operation. Hence, he submits
that the order of the Commissioner is illegal and
without jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be
set aside.
5. Mr.Mishra, learned AGA, on the other hand,
submits that the Commissioner Land Record and
Settlement after discussing the matter in detail and
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Harapriya
Bisoi, reported in AIR 2009 SC 191, as well as the
case law in the case of Smt. Basanti Kumari Sahu vrs
3
State of Orissa & Others reported in 1992 (I) OLR 41
has passed the impugned order. He further submits
that on a bare perusal of order dated 02.02.1966
(Annexure-4) passed in OEA Case No.141 of 1966, it
appears that the OEA Collector has not followed due
procedure of law and has not assigned any valid reason
while settling the case land in favour of said Debaki
Nandan Samantsingh, the vender of the father of the
petitioner. As such, the Commissioner has not
committed any illegality in passing the order impugned
herein under Annexure-3. Hence, he prays for dismissal
of the writ petition for being devoid of any merit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of materials placed before this Court
including the impugned order as at Annexure-3, it
leaves no iota of doubt that the land in question is
settled in the name of said Debaki Nandan Samantsingh
by the OEA Collector under Section 8(1) of the OEA Act.
Said order has never been challenged or varied. It
further appears that father of the petitioner had
purchased an area of Ac.0.630 decimal in plot No.656
from the recorded tenant, namely, Debaki Nandan
Samantsingh. During the settlement operation, the case
land stood recorded in the name of the father of the
petitioner, namely, Ghanashyam Samal, but the area
was reduced to Ac.0.470 decimal. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed Revision petition in RC No.624 of 2008
4
under Section 15(b) of the Act. The case law in Lily
Nanda (supra), relied upon by Mr.Behera, learned
counsel for the petitioner, clearly lays down that the
Settlement authority has no jurisdiction to sit over the
order passed by the OEA authority. The Settlement
Authority has to respect to order passed under the OEA
Act. It further appears that the State Government has
never challenged recording of the land in question in the
name of father of the petitioner. It further appears that
the final ROR has been published under Section 12 (B)
of the Act in the name of the father of the petitioner. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the reduction of area of
plot No.656 under Khata No.109, had filed the revision
under Section 15(b) of the Act. There is no quarrel over
the ratio decided in the case law relied upon by the
Commissioner while adjudicating the matter, but that
does not confer any jurisdiction of the Commissioner to
sit over the settlement made by the OEA authority,
which is still in force. Further, in a revision petition filed
by the petitioner, the Commissioner could not have
directed to record the case land in Government Khata.
7. In that view of the matter, since the Commissioner
has exceeded the jurisdiction in passing the impugned
order under Annexure-3, this Court sets aside the same
and remits the matter back to the Commissioner Land
Records and Settlement, Cuttack to adjudicate the
matter afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the
5
parties concerned and keeping in mind the observation
made above.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
8.1 Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from
the website of this Court shall be treated at pars with
certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court's
Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
................................
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
ss
