[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Paradip Port Authority vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 23 December, 2025

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.22016 of 2024

                (In the matter of an application under Articles 226
              and 227 of the Constitution of India)


               Paradip      Port Authority, ....                    Petitioners
               Paradip     Port Trust and
               others
                                        -versus-
               State of Odisha and others          ....      Opposite Parties

               Appeared in this case:-
                   For Petitioners        :             Mr. S. Dhal, Advocate

               For Opposite Parties       :                    Mr. S. Nayak,
                                                 Learned Additional Standing
                                                                     Counsel
                                                   Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                                    (For Opposite Party No.7)
               CORAM:
               JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                       JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 13.11.2025 / date of judgment : 23.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners

praying for quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2023

(Annexure-16) passed in SRP No.47 of 2020 by the learned

Land Reforms Commissioner, Odisha, Board of Revenue,

Cuttack(Opposite Party No.3).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which

prompted the petitioners for filing the same is that, the

Opposite Party No.7 of this writ petition, i.e., Rabindindra

Kumar Swain being the petitioner had filed the SRP No.47

of 2020 before the Land Reforms Commissioner, Odisha,

Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.3) praying for

recording the case land in his favour on the ground that, he

is one of the successors of the Sabik recorded tenants of the

case land and the RoR of the case land has been published

wrongly/erroneously in the last Hal settlement of the year

1984 in the name of the Paradip Port Trust without any

basis stating specifically that, the Hal RoR of the case land

published in the name of Paradip Port Trust is baseless and

illegal.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the Land Reforms

Commissioner, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite

Party No.3), passed the final order on dated 10.01.2023

(Annexure-16) in SRP No.47 of 2020 under Section 15(b) of

the OSS Act, 1958 and allowed that, SRP No.47 of 2020

filed by the petitioner(Opposite Party No.7 in this writ

petition) and directed Tahasildar, Kujang(Opposite Party

No.5 in this writ petition) to correct of the RoR of the case

land from the name of Paradip Port Trust in favour of the

petitioner through field enquiry and on verification of the

related documents following due process of law assigning

the reasons that,

"The case land vide Hal Plot No.51 A.8.75 decimals under Hal Khata No.01 in Mouza-Bhitaragada corresponds to Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.49. The Sabik RoR of the case land vide Khata No.49 Plot No.47 was recorded in the names of the predecessors of the petitioner, i.e., in the name of Sadei Sahoo and others. After the death of Sabik recorded tenants, i.e., Sadei Sahoo and others, the case land devolved upon their successors including the petitioner, but, in the final RoR of Hal settlement, the case land was recorded erroneously in the name of Paradip Port Trust under Hal Khata No.01 Plot No.51 without any document of transfer of title either from the predecessors of the petitioner or from the petitioner, for which, the recording of the case land in the Hal Settlement of the year 1984 under Hal Khata No.01 and Hal Plot No.51 in the name of Paradip Port Trust is illegal and erroneous.

On verification of the Revenue records and the materials, the Opposite Party No.3, as per impugned order dated 10.01.2023 in SRP No.47 of 2020 passed order for recording the case land in favour of the petitioner correcting the same from the name of Paradip Port Trust through field

enquiry and on verification of the related documents following due process of law."

4. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order

dated 10.01.2023(Annexure-16) passed in SRP No.47 of

2020 by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Odisha, Board of

Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.3), the Paradip Port

Trust and its officers filed this writ petition under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging

the above impugned order dated 10.01.2023(Annexure-16)

passed in SRP No.47 of 2020 by the Opposite Party No.3

praying for quashing the same on the ground that, the case

land vide Hal Khata No.51 under Hal Khata No.1 was duly

acquired from the predecessors of the Opposite Party No.7

(petitioner in SRP No.47 of 2020) by the Government and

thereafter, the case land was transferred to Paradip Port

Trust and on the basis of acquisition of the case land by the

Government and transfer of the same to Paradip Port Trust,

the RoR of the case land was prepared in the name of

Paradip Port Trust(petitioner no.1) in the Hal settlement of

the year 1984 under Hal Khata No.01 Plot No.51. For

which, the impugned order dated 10.01.2023(Annexure-16)

passed in SRP No.47 of 2020 by the Opposite Party No.3 is

liable to be quashed.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.7 and

the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

6. It is the case of the petitioners, i.e., Paradip Port Trust

and its officers that,

"the case land was acquired by the State of Orissa vide

Gazette Notification No.5190 of 1963 vide Annexure-1 from

the predecessors of the Opposite Party No.7(petitioner in SRP

No.47 of 2020) and after its acquisition, the case land was

handed over to the Paradip Port Trust(petitioner no.1) for

public purposes through certificate of possession as per

Annexure-2 and on the basis of such acquisition and delivery

of possession as per Annexures-1 and 2, the Hal RoR of the

case land was published as per Annexures-3, 4 and 5 in the

name of the Paradip Port Trust under Hal Khata No.01 and

Hal Plot No.51 and the case land is under the possession of

Paradip Port Trust and in a suit for injunction filed by the

Opposite Party No.7 in respect of the case land against the

Paradip Port Trust vide C.S. No.202 of 2020, the plaint

thereof was rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.,

1908 on dated 18.01.2021. Though, the said order was

challenged by the Opposite Party No.7 preferring an appeal

vide RFA No.01 of 2021, but, that RFA No.01 of 2021 was

dismissed as per judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by the

learned ADJ, Kujang as per Annexure-13. For which, there

was no justification under law for passing the impugned

order by the Opposite Party No.3 in SRP No.47 of 2020 for

recording the case land in favour of the petitioner by the

Tahasildar, Kujang(Opposite Party No.5) correcting the same

from the name of Paradip Port Trust on verification of

documents. Therefore, the impugned order dated

10.01.2023(Annexure-16) passed in SRP No.47 of 2020 by

the Opposite Party No.3 is liable to be quashed."

7. When, it is the case of the petitioners, i.e., Paradip

Port Trust and its officers in this writ petition that, the case

land was acquired by the State Government(Opposite Party

No.1) from the predecessors of the Opposite Party

No.7(petitioner in SRP No.47 of 2020) as per Notification

No.51690 of 1963(Annexure-1) and after acquisition of the

case land from the predecessors of the Opposite Party No.7,

the possession of the case land was handed over to the

Paradip Port Trust in the said year, 1963, but, it is curious

enough that, there is no document to show on behalf of the

petitioners in this writ petition about the acquisition of the

case land by the State Government from the predecessors of

the Opposite Party No.7 and handing over of the possession

of the same to the Paradip Port Trust. Rather, the

Notification No.516 of 1963(Annexure-1) dated

05.09.1963(Annexures-1 and 2) relied by the Paradip Port

Trust are going to show that, the case land vide Sabik Plot

No.47 in Mouza-Bhitaragada under Kujang Tahasil was not

covered in the said notification for acquisition. The report of

the Tahasildar, Kujanga(Opposite Party No.5) also does not

show about the acquisition of the case land of the petitioner

by the State Government and handing over of the

possession of the same by the State Government to the

Paradip Port Trust.

When there is no document to show about the

acquisition of the case land by the State Government either

from the Sabik recorded tenants thereof, i.e., from the

predecessors of the Opposite Party No.7 or from the

Opposite Party No.7, then at this juncture, Paradip Port

Trust cannot be the owner of the case land.

When, the case land has not been acquired by the

State Government either from the predecessors of the

Opposite Party No.7 or from the Opposite Party No.7, then

at this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the following

decisions for answering the legal status of an un-acquired

land like the case land in this writ petition :-

(i) In a case between Vidya Devi vrs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others :

reported in 2020(I) OLR(S.C.)-366 that, no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.

The forcible dispossession of a person from his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also constitution right guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, 1950.(10.2)

(ii) In a case between Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vrs. State of Himchal Pradesh and others : reported in 2022(2) CCC(S.C.)-6 that,

nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or authorization of law.

(iii) In a case between Kalyani(Dead) Through LRs. and others vrs. The Sulthan Bathery Muncipality and others : reported in 2022(2) CCC(S.C.)-133 that, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 though not a fundamental right but nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a statutory right.


     (iv)    In a case between Vimlaben Ajitbhai
     Patel        vrs.   Vatslaben   Ashokbhai   Patel     :

reported in (2008) 4 SCC-649(Para-42) that, in view of the mandate of the Article-300 A of the Constitution of India, 1950 no person is to be deprived of his property saved by the authority of law.

(v) In a case between Dhruba Charan Parida vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in AIR 2003 Orissa-219 that, the land of a person cannot be taken away without acquisition. No public road over the private land can be constructed against the wish of the land owner without acquiring the said land.

8. When, the case land, i.e., the land of the Opposite

Party No.7 has not been acquired by the State Government

and when the case land has not been transferred to the

Paradip Port Trust either by the predecessors of the

Opposite Party No.7 or by the Opposite Party No.7 through

any valid document, then at this juncture, the ownership of

the case land never lies with the Paradip Port Trust.

9. When, it is the undisputed case of the parties that, the

case land was recorded under Sabik Khata No.49, Plot

No.47 in the name of the predecessors of the Opposite Party

No.7 in the year 1930 and when, the case land has not

been transferred to the Paradip Port Trust through any

document either by the predecessors of the Opposite Party

No.7 or by the Opposite Party No.7, then at this juncture,

the case land should have been recorded in the name of the

successors of the Sabik recorded tenants of the case land

including the Opposite Party No.7(Rabindra Kumar Swain)

as the successors of the Sabik recorded tenants of the case

land.

10. Therefore, recording of the case land in the Hal RoR

vide Khata No.01, Plot No.51 in the year 1984 in the name

of Paradip Port Trust is baseless, as no document is in

favour of Paradip Port Trust showing the transfer of the

ownership of the case land either from the predecessors of

the Opposite Party No.7 or from the Opposite Party No.7 to

the Paradip Port Trust.

11. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already

been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Absalam Paik and others vrs. Collector and District Magistrate, Gajapati and others : reported in 2011(I) CLR (SC)-937 that, in the absence of any valid document establishing the title of the "D" over the case land, the entry in the RoR is of no help(Para No.10)

(ii) In a case between Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag vrs. Arun Kumar Bharadwaj(dead) through LRs and others : reported in 2021(II) OLR(SC)-904 that, RoR or Revenue Record, prepared without any order or without any supporting document, shall not create any right in favour of the recorded person.(Para Nos.27 and 28)

(iii) In a case between Mohammad Maqbool vrs. State of J, K and L and others : reported in 2025(2) Civ.C.C.-229 that, preparation of the revenue record in violation of law of succession, cannot be sustainable under law.(Para No.10).

(iv) In a case between Pabani Barik vrs.

    Bhubaneswar         Development       Authority
    represented     through   its   Secretary   and

Another : reported in 2001(II) OLR-221 that, when there is no document to show that, the petitioner has legal right on the property, then an order of mutation to the name of the petitioner by the Tahasildar not based on any document cannot be legally sustainable, the said order for recording the same in the name of the petitioner, shall be deemed as non-est in the eye of law.(Para Nos.6 & 7)

(v) In a case between Govind Naik vrs.

Sankar patro and others : reported in 1961 CLT Note-45 that, if the very foundation of the entry in the Khatian does not exist, then, the presumption in favour of its correctness losses its value altogether.

12. As per the discussions and observations made above,

when it is held that, the recording of the case land under

Hal Khata No.01 and Hal Plot No.51 in the name of the

Paradip Port Trust is baseless, then at this juncture, the

impugned order dated 10.01.2023(Annexure-16) passed by

the Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue,

Orissa(Opposite Party No.3) in SRP No.47 of 2020 under

Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958

for correction of the Hal RoR of the case land from the name

of the Paradip Port Trust in favour of the successors of the

Sabik recorded tenant including the petitioner

thereof(Opposite Party No.7 in this writ petition) cannot be