Orissa High Court
Narendra Bhoe @ Jhankar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 31 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Narendra Bhoe @ Jhankar .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. R.K. Mohanty,
Sr.Advocate.
Ms. S. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. T.K. Acharya,
ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :16.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.01.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the corrected R.o.Rs (Annexure-3 & 4) directing the Tahasildar,
Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) to restore the original recordings in
respect of the same as it were in the R.o.Rs vide Annexure-1 & 2.
2. The factual backgrounds of the writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, the R.o.Rs vide Annexure-3 & 4
were quashed by this Hon'ble Courts as per final orders passed on dated
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024
08.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No.14540 of 2015 and 14541 of 2015 filed by the
petitioner. Thereafter, he (petitioner) approached the Tahasildar,
Sambalpur by filing an application/petition on dated 08.01.2024
(Annexure-5) for restoration of the recordings thereof as it were in
Annexure-1 & 2, but, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3)
refused to register such application/petition filed on dated 08.01.2024
(Annexure-5) by the petitioner on the ground that, there was no specific
direction in the final orders passed in the above writ petition Nos.W.P.(C)
Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 for restoration of the recordings as it were in
Annexure-1 & 2. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition before
this Hon'ble Courts praying for the above directions.
3. After issuance of notice from this Hon'ble Courts, the Tahasildar,
Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) hurriedly registered the said petition
dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure-5) of the petitioner as Revenue Misc. Case
No.1 of 2024, but, rejected the same though an undated order (Annexure-
5A) assigning the reasons that, R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 is pending before
learned District Judge, Sambalpur in respect of the same properties.
4. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the State.
5. The final order was passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015
on dated 08.12.2023 by this Hon'ble Courts taking into account the
pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 in the Court of learned District Judge,
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024
Sambalpur in respect of the same properties had allowed both the said
writ petitions filed by the petitioner after setting aside the order dated
03.07.2015
passed by the Commissioner, Sambalpur clarifying in
paragraph Nos.5 & 9 of the said order that,
"Petitioner had filed Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 under
Section 5 of the Odisha Offices of Village Police (Abolition)
Act before the Tahasildar for settlement of property. The
Tahasildar in his order dated 25.08.2010 settled half of the
land i.e. measuring Ac.4.110 decimal in favour of the
petitioner and other half Ac.4.110 decimal was directed to be
recorded in favour of the deity. Against the said order of the
Tahasildar, the opposite party No.1 approached the Appellate
Authority i.e. Sub-Collector by filing Bebandobasta Appeal
No.5 of 2010. After hearing the said Bebandobasta Appeal
No.5 of 2010, as per final order dated 27.07.2012 passed in
that Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010, the sub-Collector
upheld the order passed by the OEA Collector-cum-Tahasildar
in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009. The said order of the
Appellate Authority passed in OEA Appeal No.5 of 2010 has
attained finality in absence of further challenge to the same. As
per the final order passed by the Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1
of 2009 and confirmation to the same by the Sub-Collector in
OEA Appeal No.5 of 2010, there was direction to record the
case land in favour of the petitioner as well as deity in equal
share."
Inspite of the said findings of the Hon'ble Courts in Paragraph
Nos.5 & 9 of the final order passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of
2015 after taking into account the pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015, the
Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) rejected the Revenue Misc.
Case No.1 of 2024 of the petitioner as per Annexure-5A only on the sole
ground i.e. for the pendency of the R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 without taking
into account to the above observations made by this Hon'ble Courts as
per final order dated 08.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541
of 2015.
6. It is the settled propositions of law that, order passed by the
statutory authorities under OEA Act, cannot be ignored by the Revenue
Authorities at the time of making correction of records of land.
The above propositions of law has already been clarified by the
Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rama Devi (dead), after her, her
legal heirs Ch. Dhananjay Mohapatra and others Vrs.
Government of Orissa, represented through its Secretary
to G.A. Department and others reported in 2014 (1) O.J.R.
(509), "order passed by the statutory authority under the
O.E.A. Act cannot be ignored as without jurisdiction by an
authority under the O.S.S. Act.
(ii) In a case between Prafulla Chandra Muduli and
others Vrs State of Odisha and others reported in 2005
(Supp.) OLR 950, "an order passed under one statute by a
superior authority can under no stretch of imagination be
varied or held to be without jurisdiction by an authority
exercising power under another independent statute. (Para
8)."
(iii) In a case between Sanatan Acharya Vrs.
Tahasildar, Panposh & others reported in 2016 (2) O.J.R.
(462), "Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the superior
court with regard to entry in the ROR. He has no authority
to sit over the order of Higher Authority."
7. Here in this writ at hand, when as per the reflections made in
paragraph Nos.5 & 9 of the final order dated 08.12.2023 passed in
W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 for joint recording of the properties
involved in the writ petitions in favour of the petitioner and deity on the
basis of order passed in Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010 confirming to
the final order in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 has already been
reached in its finality without being challenged to the same, then at this
juncture, in view of the said direction, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur
(opposite party No.3) should have recorded the properties involved in the
writ petition deleting the recordings thereof in Annexure-3 & 4. For
which, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) should not have
rejected the Revenue Case No.1 of 2024 as per Annexure-5A only on the
ground of pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015.
So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions to this writ at hand, it is held that, the undated order
passed by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) vide
Annexure-5A in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 cannot be sustainable
under law, because, it was the duty of the Revenue Officer for passing the
order in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 for recording of the properties
involved in the writ petition on the basis of final order passed in
Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010, but, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur has
not done so. For which, the undated order passed in Revenue Misc. Case
No.1 of 2024 vide Annexure-5A by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur cannot be
sustainable under law.
8. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The undated order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of
2024 (Annexure-5A) by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur is quashed.
The matter vide Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 is remitted back
to the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) for deciding the said
Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 afresh as per law and to record the
properties involved in that Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 on the basis
of final order passed in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 and the
confirmation to the same in Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010 and to
make necessary corrections of the names from the RoRs vide Annexure-3
& 4 of this writ petition.
9. The Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) is directed to
dispose of the Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 within a period of two
months positively from the date of communication of this judgment.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
31.01.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Jan-2025
15:14:23
