Orissa High Court
Niranjan Prasad Panda & vs State Of Odisha And Others on 7 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1202 of 2023
Niranjan Prasad Panda & .... Petitioners
another
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment 07.02.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 27th
October, 2022 made by the Tahsildar in Mutation Case no.8392 of
2022 and direction for, in effect, causing mutation in the record.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
petitioners had obtained leave on earlier occasion to file additional
affidavit. He files it with copy to Mr. Rout, learned advocate,
Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State.
3. Impugned order dated 27th October, 2022 is reproduced
below:
"27/10/2022
The case is taken up today. Perused the applicant's
document and found that the case is referred to
Assistant Settlement Officer vide W.P.C No.13319/2014
for information and necessary action. Hence the case is
rejected as it is not related to the court of Tahsildar,
Jatni."
4. Mr. Mohanty submits, his clients had earlier filed writ petition
WP(C) no.13319 of 2014. By order dated 6th April, 2018 there was
direction for remitting the matter to Assistant Settlement Officer, to
dispose of Objection Case no.4900/1467 of 2013 in accordance with
Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The matter went to the
Assistant Settlement Officer, who by order dated 30th November,
2021 had requested the Tahsildar to implement the order of the High
Court. Hence, his clients moved the Tahasildar. However, the
Tahasildar, on impugned order, also refused to proceed. He seeks
interference.
5. On query from Court Mr. Mohanty relies on rule 34 in Odisha
Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962. Said rule provides for grounds on
which correction of the Record of Rights and map is to be made. The
Tahsildar is empowered thereby.
6. Mr. Rout relies on Section 15 to submit, it is only the Board
of Revenue that can require revision of any Record of Right, where
final record has been published.
7. Section 43 empowers the government to make rules for
purpose of carrying out provisions in the Act. Section 44 requires the
rules to be laid before the State Legislature. The rules were duly made
and we have satisfaction that rule 34 allows for the Tahsildar to cause
correction in the Record of Rights. Section 15 is power of revision by
Board of Revenue, on direction made by it on its own motion or on
application made to it. Here, petitioners had not applied to the Board
of Revenue. Their cause for correction was adjudicated in their earlier
said writ petition. There was clear direction for their contention for
correction being dealt with. The direction was upon the Assistant
Settlement Officer. Mr. Rout points out that petitioners could not
produce lease sanction order of the Tahsildar, trace map nor lease
confirmation order of the Additional District Magistrate, which is
why there was request made by the officer to the Tahsildar.
8. There is no requirement for us to adjudicate contention raised
on behalf of State that after final settlement, it is only the Board of
Revenue, who can direct revision of the record. That contention ought
to have been raised in petitioners' earlier writ petition. What
transpires is that when there has been direction of coordinate Bench
for dealing with the objection regarding requirement for correction of
the record, the Tahsildar under rule 34 may do it. A public officer
having a duty to do a thing is required to do it, when applied for by a
citizen. This was law declared by the Supreme Court in L. Hirday
Narain Vs. I.T.O., Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC 33.
9. On above facts and circumstances we set aside and quash
impugned order dated 27th October, 2022. The Tahsildar is directed to
deal with petitioners' contention regarding correction of the record, in
line with said order dated 6th April, 2018 in WP(C) no.13319 of 2014.
10. The writ petition is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. K. Mishra )
Judge
P. Pradhan
