Orissa High Court
Mrs. Anjana Kathuria vs The Settlement Officer on 17 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) NO.21669 OF 2014
Mrs. Anjana Kathuria .... Petitioner
Mr.S.Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
The Settlement Officer, Cuttack .... Opposite Parties
Major Settlement, Jobra & ors.
Mr.U.K.Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order 17.2.2023
No.
3. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order passed in
Objection Case No.5996 of 2012 by the Competent Authority, vide
Annexure-4.
3. In course of hearing, this Court records the objection of the
learned Additional Standing Counsel that for there is already final
publication under Section 41 of the O.S.S. Act, the Petitioner is
required to bring appropriate proceeding under the provision of
Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act to resolve the issue involved herein.
4. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this
Court to dealing with the question involved herein and the same
argument of the learned Additional Standing Counsel and also
bringing to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Division
// 2 //
Bench in W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014 along with batch contended,
even in the involvement of such objection, there has been disposal of
the proceeding by the Division Bench in favour of the Petitioner.
5. This Court finds, from Paragraph-14 of the said judgment,
the objection raised herein in the objection of the learned State
Counsel in entertaining the Writ Petition is well taken care of, which
reads as follows :-
"14. At one stage of the arguments in the present cases, a
question arose whether in many of these cases there had been
a final publication of the list as envisaged in Rule 29 of the
Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (OSS Rules) ?
That was because in terms of Section 13 of the OSS Act, the
final publication of the list lends a presumption of correctness
to every entry made on the ROR and the remedy for a person
aggrieved by such entry in the final list published under
Section 13 of the OSS Act is to prefer a revision petition
under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act before the Board of
Revenue. Where there is no such final publication of list, and
an order has been passed by an ASO at the stage of
publication of the draft ROR under Section 12 of the OSS
Act, the remedy lies by way of an appeal under Section 12 A
of the OSS Act."
6. Finding the judgment very much applies to the case at
hand, this Writ Petition is disposed of with direction already
therein in Paragraphs-19 & 20 of the aforesaid judgment
passed by the Division Bench as follows :-
"(i) The impugned order of the ASO declining to
accept the request of the Petitioner for recording of her name
in the ROR in respect of the lands in question on the ground
that the land belongs to the Government, is hereby set aside;
(ii) The corresponding order by the Appellate
Authority affirming such order of the ASO is also hereby set
aside;
// 3 //
(iii) A direction is issued to the ASO to now proceed to
record the name of the Petitioner concerning the land in
question in her name in the ROR in accordance with law
within a period of eight weeks;
(iv) Where the land in question stands recorded in the
final published ROR in the name of the Government that
entry will stand cancelled by virtue of this order and the ASO
will proceed to record it in favour of the Petitioner.
20. The above directions will be carried out within a
period of four months from today. It is made clear that this
order will not prevent the Government from exercising
powers under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act in accordance
with law."
6. The Writ Petition interfering with the order at Annexure-4
and setting aside the same is disposed of in the above terms.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
M.K.Rout
