Orissa High Court
Ananta Behera vs The Commissioner on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21271 of 2018
Ananta Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. Sambit Rath, Advocate
-versus-
The Commissioner, Land Records .... Opp. Parties
and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack
and another
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
30.11.2021
11. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
order dated 11th October, 2018 (Annexure-5) passed by the
Commissioner, Land Records Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P.
No.724 of 2007, whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the
Petitioner under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement
Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and directed the Tahasildar,
Dasarathpur to file civil appeal before the appropriate forum
against the order passed by the then Tahasildar, Jajpur by settling
the land in favour of the Petitioner in Encroachment Case No.288
of 1981.
3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
land pertaining to Hal Plot Nos.270 and 271 in Hal Khata No.551
corresponding to Sabik Plot No.298 under Sabik Khata No.52 and
Sabik Plot No.211 (part) under Sabik Khata No.501 under the then
Jajpur Tahasil in the district of Jajpur was settled in favour of the
Petitioner pursuant to the order passed in Encroachment Case
// 2 //
No.288 of 1981. Subsequently, the said lease was cancelled
unilaterally for which the Petitioner filed T.S. No.194 of 1990.
Learned Munsif, Jajpur by judgment dated 2nd November, 1992
decreed the suit in favour of the Petitioner holding cancellation of
the lease as illegal. On the basis of the decree passed, the Petitioner
filed Revision Case No. 724 of 2007 for correction of the R.O.R.
in his name and the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been
passed.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Commissioner while adjudicating the revision
under Section 15(b) of the Act filed by the Petitioner had no
jurisdiction to direct the Tahasildar, Dasarathpur to file appeal
against the judgment and decree passed by learned civil court.
Further, cancellation of lease has already been set aside by
competent civil court. Further, observations made in the impugned
order are self contradictory. In that view of the matter, he prays for
setting aside the impugned order and direct the Tahasildar,
Dasarathpur to record the land in question in the name of the
Petitioner.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State, on instruction, submits that assailing the judgment and
decree passed in T.S. No.194 of 1990, RFA No. 32 of 2019 has
been filed, which is pending before learned District Judge, Jajpur.
Thus, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that
the right of the Petitioner to be recorded in respect of the land in
question can only be considered subject to the judgment and
decree to be passed in said RFA.
6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently
objected to the same and submitted that after filing of the writ
// 3 //
petition only, appeal has been filed and the same has not yet been
admitted by condoning the delay. Thus, it can be construed that no
civil proceeding is pending against the judgment and decree passed
in T.S. No.194 of 1990.
7. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and more particularly, the fact that RFA
No.32 of 2019 is pending for consideration before learned District
Judge, Jajpur, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition at this stage. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew
his prayer before the revisional authority by filing a fresh revision
petition subject to the outcome of the aforesaid appeal. The
Petitioner is also at liberty to pursue learned District Judge, Jajpur
for early disposal of the said appeal.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
jm
