Orissa High Court
Minati Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 8 April, 2025
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2025
Minati Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. P. Sahoo, Advocate
Vs.
1. State of Odisha
2. Settlement Officer, Jobra
3. Assistant Settlement Officer,
Jobra
4. Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar
5.Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar Opp. Parties
..... Mr. A. Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
08.04.2025
(Through hybrid mode)
Order No. 1. This writ application has been filed with the following
03.
prayer;
"1. To quash/set aside the Plot No.798 under ROR
No.3598 recorded in the name of Government.
2. To direct the ASO, Jobra to accept the application for
correction and record above Plot in the name of the
petitioner in separate Khata.
3. To pass order directing any other reliefs as available
under law.
For the act of which the petitioner shall ever pray."
2. Referring to his date chart Mr. S. P. Sahoo, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that Basanti Mishra had
purchased Ac. 0650 dec of land in the year 1983 and mutated the
Page1 of 5
same in her name. She had applied for lease and lease was
granted in her favour. On 30.11.1992, the present petitioner
purchased Ac. 0.050 dec from Basanti Mishra and in the year
1994 she applied for mutation of the purchased land. In the year
1995, mutation case No. 4655 of 1994 was allowed in favour of
the petitioner and ROR No. 224/1023 with Plot No. 328/3378
was issued. In the year 2009, the petitioner applied for lease, as
her vendor was holding lease patta and lease case No.
5357/2009 was allowed and incorporated in the register. In the
year 2023 Jamabandi was opened having Jamabandi No.
224/1023. On 11.05.2024 rent was collected till 2024-25. In the
year 2024 all of a sudden the ASO, Jobra issued draft ROR,
recording the land in question in Government ROR changing the
kisam to 'Patita Godia'. He further submits that the case of the
petitioner covered by the decision of this Court in the case of
Narottam Rath vs. State of Odisha & others & batch reported in
2023 SCC Online Odisha 453. Referring to the decision dated
17.12.2024 of the Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha &
ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar Samantaray, he submits that the order
in Narottam Rath (supra) still stands good as the Court has held
Page2 of 5
that if lease was granted no record of right was required to be
prepared in terms of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and
Settlement Act, 1958.
3. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel at the very
outset has submitted that the decision of this Court in case of
Narottam Rath (supra) has been set aside by the Supreme Court
in the case of Deepak Kumar Samantaray(supra) and hence the
decision in Narottam Rath (supra) cannot come to the aid of the
petitioner. He further submits that if draft ROR has been
published recording the land in question in the name of the
Government (GA Department) changing the kisam to Patita
Godia, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the
Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.
4. The relevant portion of order dated 17.12.2024 of the
Supreme Court is extracted below;
"Delay condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed and set
aside for the simple reason that instead of deciding each case
individually, on its given fact, the High Court proceeded to club
and decide all the matters by presuming the facts to be
common/identical and framing a common question of law.
As such on this short ground alone, the judgment requires
Page3 of 5
interference, we are of the considered view that each case had to
be considered on its own merits.
Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions
of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958
were exercised prior to the finalisation of the Record of Rights or
at a subsequent stage was not considered by the High Court.
Also as to whether the aggrieved parties had exhausted their
remedies as provided under Section 12A and/or Section 15B of
the said Act was also not considered by the High Court. The
High Court proceeded on the assumption that all the petitioners
before the Court had leases in their favour, in relation to which
no Record of Rights was required to be prepared in terms
of Section 12 of the said Act.
As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting on the
merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us, we
remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.
We hope and expect that each case would be considered
and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and
contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated before
the High Court.
The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on
15.1.2025. The parties undertake to fully co-operate in the
proceedings before the High Court.
The special leave petitions are disposed of as above. Pending
application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
5. As the decision in Narottam Rath (Supra) has been set
aside by the Supreme Court, petitioner cannot place reliance on
it.
6. In view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Odisha & ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Samantaray
(supra) that it has to be considered whether the aggrieved
Page4 of 5
parties had exhausted their remedies under Section-12A and/or
Section-15B of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, on
consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is apparent that alternative remedies have not been
exhausted. So, I am not inclined to entertain this writ
application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhalaxmi
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication Page5 of 5
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2025 19:34:01
