Dinabandhu Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7546 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.21123 of 2023

            Dinabandhu Sahoo                        ....         Petitioner(s)
                                                      Mr. B.R. Behera, Adv.
                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha & Ors.                  ....       Opposite Party(s)
                                                         Mr. U.K. Sahoo, ASC

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                        ORDER

13.07.2023 Order No.

01. 1. There is no dispute at Bar that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court already rendered in W.P.(C) No.17153 of 2014 on 4.05.2018. Therefore the order runs as follows:-

2. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order at Annexure-5.

3. Short background involved herein is that in the first round of litigation, both the petitioners challenging the cancellation of lease of their vendor, filed O.J.C. No.5878 of 2002. This Court on disposal of the O.J.C. No.5878 of 2002, remanded the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for passing appropriate order giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners herein. It appears that after the Court's direction, Lease Revision Case No.893 of 1998 has been decided afresh vide order dated 18.08.2006 while accepting the claim of the petitioners, thereby directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the land record in respect of the land mentioned therein in favour of the petitioners. It also appears that consequent upon such development, the draft RORs have also been published. In the

// 2 //

meantime, the State filed Objection Nos.16032/3977 of 2013 respectively disputing the recording of the lands in favour of the petitioners and disposing of the Objection Cases, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar while allowing the case of the State directed for recording the lands in favour of the State and thereby setting aside the draft recording in favour of the Petitioners.

4. Assailing the impugned order at Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, Mr. B.R. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised two objections; firstly in absence of challenge to the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar involving Lease Revision No.893 of 1998, the direction therein could not have been interfered by any other authority, particularly the subordinate authorities; secondly since the draft publication of the ROR was already there, there was no occasion for the Assistant Settlement Officer to entertain the objection cases and pass order.

5. Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned ASC appearing for the Opposite Parties-State submitted that for the final publication of RORs, both the petitioners have no right to assail the order at Annexure-5 to the writ petition except raising the dispute through Section 15 of the Survey and Settlement Act. It is in the circumstances, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC prayed this Court for dismissing this Writ Petition.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in deciding the Lease Revision Case No.893 of 1998 following a direction of this Court in O.J.C. No.5878 of 2002 while allowing the revision in part has a clear direction to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record Ac.0.300 decimals of land purchased by each of the petitioners in the land records. Admittedly, this order has not been challenged by any party any further. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that unless the

// 3 //

order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar is challenged in the higher forum, there has been no occasion for any other authority to ignore such orders. It is at this stage, this Court finds, there has already been publication of the draft RORs making necessary correction and bringing the petitioner in the writ petition as the owners of the land in respect of Ac.0.100 decimals each. It is under the above circumstances, this Court fins, the Objection Cases were not maintainable. For the dispute involved therein, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar having no jurisdiction involving any such dispute, in the circumstance, this Court interfering in the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar at Annexure-5, this Court sets aside the impugned order at Annexure-5. For setting aside of the impugned order at Annexure-5, this Court directs the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to prepare the R.O.Rs in favour of the Petitioners in respect of Ac.0.100 decimals of land in favour of the Petitioner, as directed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide Annexure-2 within a period of two months form the date of communication/ production of the certified copy of this order by the Petitioners.

7. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge Ayaskanta Jena

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Jul-2023 10:53:21