Orissa High Court
Kshetramani Biswal And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 31 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Kshetramani Biswal and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. B. C. Panda,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Tej Kumar,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 3-State)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :29.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.07.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashing the final order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-4) passed in
Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the
O.S. & S. Act, 1958 by the Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of
Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3).
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned ASC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3).
3. The case of the petitioners is that, they (petitioners) filed the
revision vide Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 under Section
15(b) of the O.S. & S. Act, 1958 praying for correction of the R.o.R. of
the case land vide Khata No.177, Plot No.548, area A0.29 decimals,
kissam Gharabari from the name of Bana Bibhaga to the name of the
petitioners as per the judgment and decree passed on dated 27.01.2004
and 12.02.2004 respectively in T.S. No.153 of 1997 by the learned Civil
Judge (Jr. Division), Kujang. But, the Land Reforms Commissioner
(Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) dismissed to that
Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 of the petitioners as per its
final order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-4) only on the sole ground that,
"as the suit vide T.S. No.153 of 1997 was filed after publication
of the Hal R.o.R. and the filing of the said suit was post
publication of the R.o.R., for which, the Land Reforms
Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3)
lacks its jurisdiction to entertain the same."
4. Now the question arises,
"whether any suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit
properties is entertainable under law before the Civil Court after
publication of the Hal R.o.R. and whether on the basis of the
judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the Settlement
Authority including the Revenue Authority i.e. Land Reforms
Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3)
can pass order for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land on the
basis of the judgment and decree of the civil suit?"
5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rasogolla Jhankar Vrs. Gobardhan Kuanar
(dead) and others decided on 20.05.2024 in S.A. No.346 of 1988
(Orissa) at Para-22 that, the entries in the settlement themselves
neither creates title nor extinguishes it and it is always open to the
Civil Court to find the real holder of title of the suit properties despite
entries made in the settlement papers.
(ii) In a case between State of Orissa Vrs. Mst. Pama Mali reported
in 1978 (1) C.W.R. 209 that, suit based on title does not come within
the ambit of Section 42 of the O.S. & S. Act, 1958. The plaintiffs' suit
being based on antecedent title, they are entitled to succeed, unless,
the defendants establish loss of plaintiffs' title by adverse possession.
(iii) In a case between Lokanath Misra Vrs. State of Orissa and
others reported in 50 (1980) CLT (Notes 3) 2 that, the settlement
entry is subject to decision of the Civil Court in a suit. The Civil Court
has jurisdiction to nullify the findings of the Board of Revenue. The
decision of the Settlement Commissioner, which is not in accordance
with the Civil Court decree, is not sustainable.
(iv) In a case between Smt. Manjubala Pattanayak Vrs. State of
Orissa and others reported in 2001 (I) OLR 530 and in a case
between Dr. Gati Krisna Misra Vrs. State of Orissa and others
reported in 2002 (I) OLR 69 that, as per Rule 34 of Orissa Survey and
Settlement Rules, 1962, it is the duty of the Revenue Authority to act
in accordance to the decision of the Civil Court, even though decree is
ex parte and no action was taken under O.9 R.13, CPC, 1908 to set
aside the decree. (Para 2 to 5)
6. When, it is the settled propositions of law that, the settlement
entries are subject to the decision of the Civil Court in a suit and when
Rule 34 of Orissa Survey Settlement Rules, 1962 provides that, the
Revenue Authority including the Settlement Authority shall make
correction of the record of rights on the basis of the judgment and decree
passed by the Civil Court and when as per the dictum of the Hon'ble
Courts clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, a civil suit like the
suit vide T.S. No.153 of 1997 in this matter at hand is entertainable
before the Civil Court after final publication of the R.o.R. of the case land
for declaration of title of the plaintiff/plaintiffs, then at this juncture, the
Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.
No.3) should not have dismissed that revision vide Revision Petition
No.216 of 2022 filed by the petitioners assigning the reasons that, as the
civil suit vide T.S. No.153 of 1997 was filed after publication of the Hal
R.o.R, the Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha,
Cuttack (O.P. No.3) lacks its jurisdiction to entertain the same. Because,
such reasons for dismissal of the Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of
2022 are not sustainable under law.
For which, the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-4)
passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 by the Land
Reforms Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3)
is quashed.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed on
contest.
The matter vide Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 is remitted
back/remanded back to the Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of
Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) for its fresh adjudication as per
law on the basis of the provisions envisaged under Rule 34 of the Orissa
Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 after giving opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners and others, if any, as expeditiously as possible within a
period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment.
The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the
Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of Revenue), Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.
No.3) in Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022 on dated
07.08.2025 in order to receive the directions of O.P. No.3 as to further
proceedings of the said Settlement Revision Petition No.216 of 2022.
8. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment
immediately to the Land Reforms Commissioner (Board of Revenue),
Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) in reference to Settlement Revision Petition
No.216 of 2022.
9. As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
31.07.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
