Orissa High Court
Bilasini Gochhayat @ Bilasi Dei & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... ... on 7 August, 2024
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGRAM DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Aug-2024 13:07:39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 32320 of 2023
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
Bilasini Gochhayat @ Bilasi Dei & Ors. ....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Nayak, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr.S.P.Panda, A.G.A
CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
7th August 2024
B.P. Routray,J.
1. Heard Mr.A.Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners and
Mr.S.P.Panda, learned AGA for the State.
2. The Tahasildar's order dated 24th May 2023 under
Anneuxre-4 is impugned in present writ petition.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioners approached
the Tahasildar for correction of the ROR in his name, in respect of the
case land, pursuant to the order of the Joint Commissioner of
Settlement and Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha dated 26th
July 2017, and the decree passed by learned Munsif 1st Court, Cuttack
in T.S.No.21 of 1989.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The suit property appertains to Hal Plot No.247, Hal Khata
No.3 measuring Ac.0.58 decimals of Mouza-Unit-36, Raja Bagicha.
Initially the Petitioners approached the Joint Commissioner of
Settlement under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act and the Joint
Commissioner in his order dated 26th July 2017 has directed as
follows:-
"Finally the revision case is allowed. The
order passed in the Title Suit No.21 of 1989
binding upon both the parties. The Tahasildar,
Cuttack Sadar is directed to correct the Hal ROR
on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned
Munsif, 1st Court, Cuttack."
4. It would be profitable here to say that learned Munsif in the
judgment and decree dated 20th October 1990 have declared
indefeasible right of the Petitioner over the suit land i.e. present case
land stated above. A further verification of the judgment of learned
Munsif reveals that the decree of declaration was granted in favour of
the Petitioners predecessor (plaintiff) on the ground of adverse
possession. It needs to be mentioned here that declaration of title by
way of adverse possession in respect of the deity is not permissible
since the deity is considered as the perpetual minor in terms of the
provisions of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act. However,
in absence of challenge to that aspect of the decree of the Civil Court,
this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the legality and
propriety of the decree dated 11th January 1990. Since said decree of
the Civil Court remains unchallenged till date despite the
correspondence and intimation sent by the Tahasildar in his letter
dated 10th November 2020 and 29th December 2022, as reflected in
the impugned order, to Endowment Authorities, said decree of the
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Civil Court is found binding on all. In this regard, it is observed that
the decree of the competent Civil Court is binding on the Revenue
Authorities till the same is in force. Rule 35 of OSS Rules makes it
clear that the Revenue Authority is bound to carry out the decree of
the Civil Court, even without initiating a regular mutation proceeding.
5. Despite the direction of the Joint Commissioner to the
Tahasildar to correct the ROR on the basis of the decree passed by the
Civil Court, which undoubtedly is in force till date without being
questioned by anyone including Endowment Authorities, no occasion
is left on the part of the Tahasildar to held otherwise by sitting, as
appellate authority, over the order of the Commissioner. This Court in
Sanatan Acharya vs. Tahasildar, Panposh & Ors, 2016(2) OLR 290
have observed that Rule 35 of the OSS Rules provides that the
Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the superior Court with regard
to entry in the ROR and he has no authority to sit over the order of the
higher Court. Also in the case of Prasanna Kumar Routray vs.
Member Board of Revenue, Odisha & Ors., 2022 (2) CLR 1041 a
similar observation has been made at Para-9 of the decision.
6. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, the decree passed in
Title Suit No.21 of 1989 is never disputed or challenged and the same
has attained finality without being challenged till date. The Petitioners
had approached the Joint Commissioner of Settlement who directed
the Tahasildar in the revision to correct the ROR in their favour based
on the decree passed by the Civil Court. But the Tahasildar instead of
implementing the direction of the Joint Commissioner sat over it as in
appeal refusing to correct the ROR in favour of the Petitioners. Such
approach of the Tahasildar is unsustainable and impermissible in the
eye of law. The provisions contained in Rule 34 of the OSS Rule,
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
1962 read with the provisions of Rule 35 are found squarely fitted to
the instant case and as such, the rejection of the prayer of the
Petitioners by the Tahasildar in the impugned order dated 24th May
2023 under Annexure-4 is set aside being found illegal and erroneous.
The Tahasildar is directed to correct the ROR in favour of the
Petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of as allowed.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
Sangram Das, Sr.Steno
