Orissa High Court
Laxmipriya Choudhury And vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8575 of 2024
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Laxmipriya Choudhury and .... Petitioners
another
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. B.B. Swain,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. D. K. Sahoo,
Addl. Govt. Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :12.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.03.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack (O.P.2) in
R.P. No.137 of 2021.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners are both wife and
husband respectively. The case land is Ac0.04 decimals i.e. Hal Plot
No.182 under Hal Khata No.510 in Mouza Puruna Baripada under
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C) No.8575 of 2024
Gopabandhu Nagar Tahasil, P.S.-Khunta in the district of Mayurbhanj,
which corresponds to Sabik Plot No.107 and Sabik Khata No.401.
3. The case land measuring an area Ac0.04 decimal was leased out by
the Tahasildar, Gopabandhu Nagar (O.P.4) in favour of the petitioners as
per Lease Case No.127 of 2005. On the basis of the said lease in favour
of the petitioners as per Lease Case No.127 of 2005, they (petitioners) are
in possession over the same continuously. During the Hal settlement, the
said lease hold land Ac.0.04 decimals of the petitioners was recorded
erroneously in the name of the Government under Hal Khata No.510, Plot
No.182, for which, the petitioners filed revision under Section 15(b) of
the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 before the O.P.2 vide R.P.
No.137 of 2021 praying for recording the case land in their names
deleting the name of the Government from Hal Plot No.182 under Hal
Khata No.510.
After hearing, the O.P.2 rejected the R.P. No.137 of 2021 of the
petitioners as per Order dated 25.11.2022 assigning the reasons that,
"From the documents relied upon, it is noticed that, the petitioners were
granted lease measuring an Area- Ac.0.04 dec with respect to Khata No.-
396/52, Plot No. 107/1778 vide Order passed in Lease case no-127/2005.
The Tahasildar, Gopabandhunagar has submitted PWC, Sabik Hal Co-
relation, field possession report & present status along with trace map
vide his letter no.1613 dt.13.09.2022. The Tahasildar has confirmed the
possession of the petitioners measuring an area of Ac.0.04 dec vide Hal
Plot No.182 of Hal Khata No.510. As per the Hal Sabik Comparison
given by Tahasildar, Hal Khata No.510, Hal Plot No.-182 corresponds to
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) No.8575 of 2024
Sabik Khata No.401, Sabik Plot No.107. It is pertinent to mention here
that, neither the Tahasildar nor the petitioners have produced records of
Lease case no-127/2005. In absence of records of Lease case
no.127/2005, proper adjudication as regards to entitlement of the
petitioners cannot be determined."
For which, the petitioners challenged the above Order dated
25.11.2022
passed by the O.P.2 in R.P. No.137 of 2021 by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing the said Order dated 25.11.2022 passed in
R.P. No.137 of 2021 on the ground that, when the Tahasildar has
confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the case land on the basis
of Lease Case No.127 of 2005, then only due to non-production of lease
case record by the Tahasildar cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of
the petitioners for recording of the case land in their names, when
undisputedly, they are in possession over the same on the basis of the
lease granted in their favour in Lease Case No.127 of 2005.
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
5. The propositions of law has already been settled by the Hon'ble
Courts in the ratio of the decision between Brundaban Patnaik Vrs
Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 53
that, long possession can be considered by the Tahasildar on the basis of field enquiry
to correct map and R.o.R, if necessary.
6. When, undisputedly it is the own finding of the O.P.2 in the
impugned order on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar,
Gopabandhu Nagar (O.P.4) that, the petitioners are in possession over the
case land on the basis of the lease granted in their favour through Lease
Case No.127 of 2005 and when it is the settled propositions of law that,
the R.o.R. neither creates title nor extinguishes title, but the same is
prepared for the purpose of collection of land revenue from the person,
who is in possession over the same and when the petitioners are in
possession over the case land as per the Government record submitted by
the O.P.4 since 2005, then at this juncture, the prayers of the petitioners
should not have been refused/rejected by the O.P.2 on the ground of non-
production of the records of Lease Case No.127 of 2005 by the O.P.4
(Tahasildar, Gopabandhu Nagar, who is the custodian of the said records)
and for the fault of the O.P.4 for non-production of the records of Lease
Case No.127 of 2005.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
a case between Gajendra Prasad Das Vrs. State of Orissa and Others reported in
2016 (2) O.J.R. (265) that, if the petitioner has not produced the non-availability
certificate, it can be verified by the State Government being the custodian of the
Government records, because, the State Authorities are the custodian of the official
records.
For which, the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed in R.P.
No.137 of 2021 by the O.P.2 cannot be sustainable under law. The same is
liable to be set aside.
Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order passed in R.P. No.137 of 2021 through this writ
petition filed by the petitioners.
7. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.
The impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed in R.P. No.137 of
2021 by the O.P.2 is set aside/quashed.
The Tahasildar, Gopabandhu Nagar (O.P.4) is directed to correct
the records of the lease out case land in favour of the petitioners in Lease
Case No.127 of 2005 measuring area Ac0.04 decimals in Mouza Puruna
Baripada under Gopabandhu Nagar Tahasil, P.S. Khunta in the district of
Mayurbhanj from the name of the Government to the name of the
petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
24.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
UTKALIKA NAYAK
Reason:
Authentication
Location: High
Court of Orissa,
Cuttack W.P.(C) No.8575 of 2024
Date: 24-Mar-2025
18:44:44
