[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
*** vs Kamala Kanta Sahoo & Others on 28 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.448 of 2017
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sailendra Kumar Singh & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
Kamala Kanta Sahoo & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.P.Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. M. Mishra, Advocate
(For the Opp. Party No.1)
Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.
(For the State)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 28.11.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. 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 07.12.2016
(Annexure-13) passed in Revision Case No.165 of 2007 under
Section 37 (1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 by the Joint
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack (Opp.
Party No.13).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, as per
Sabik Settlement of the year 1929, the case land was Plot
Nos.1201 and 1199 under Sikim Khata No.15.
In the Hal Settlement of the year 1977, the said case
land became Plot Nos.1419, 1420, 1421 and 1422 under Hal
Sikim Khata No.2 (Annexure-7).
The said case land became consolidation Plot Nos.1605
and 1604 under Consolidation Sikim Khata No.3 (Annexure-9)
published in the year 1986.
3. Sabik Sikim Khata No.15 of the year 1929 was in the
names of
Bauri Sahoo S/o-Paramananda Sahoo,
Raghu Sahoo S/o-Bikala Sahoo,
Bidyadhar Sahoo S/o-Narana Sahoo,
Gobinda Sahoo and Chakradhar Sahoo Sons of Nidhi
Sahoo as sikim tenants.
The landlord of the same was Raysaheb Nanda Kishore
Bal and Others.
4. The Sikim tenants in Hal Khata No.2 (Annexure-7) were
Kailash Chandra Singh & Kapilash Singh Sons of
Suryamani Singh.
Krushna Chandra Jena S/o-Kashinath Jena
Natabara Jena S/o- Raghunath Jena
Ratnakar Sahu S/o- Raghu Sahu.
5. The consolidation sikim Khata No.3 (Annexure-9) was
published in the year 1986 in the names of
Kailash Chandra Singh & Kapila Singh Sons of
Suryamani Singh.
Krushan Chandra Jena S/o- Kashinath Jena
Natabara Jena S/o- Raghunath Jena
Ratnakar Sahu S/o- Raghu Sahu.
6. The Opp. Party No.1 in this writ petition is Kamalakanta
Sahu S/o- Late Ratnakara Sahu, who was the petitioner in
Revision Case No.165 of 2007 under Section 37 (1) of the OCH
& PFL Act, 1972 before the Opp. Party No.13.
In Revision Case No.165 of 2007, the petitioner thereof
Kamalakanta Sahu (Opp. Party No.1 in this writ petition) had
prayed for deletion of the names of Kailash Chandra Singh
(father of the petitioners in this writ petition), Kapila Singh,
Krushna Chandra Jena and Natabara Jena from the Hal R.o.R
vide Khata No.2 (Annexure-7) as well as from consolidation
R.o.R vide Khata No.3 (Annexure-9) on the ground that, he
(Kamalakanta Sahu) is the only successor of all the Sabik
Recorded Sikim Tenants i.e. (i) Bauri Sahoo (ii) Raghu Sahoo,
(iii) Bidyadhar Sahoo (iv) Gobinda Sahoo and (v) Chakradhara
Sahoo. For which, the recording of the names of Kailash
Chandra Singh, Kapilash Singh, Krushna Chandra Jena and
Natabara Jena (those are not their family members) in the Hal
R.o.R as well as consolidation R.o.R are illegal and erroneous,
because, they are strangers to his family.
The father of the petitioners in this writ petition i.e.
Kailash Chandra Singh being the Opp. Party in Revision Case
No.165 of 2007 had objected the same stating that,
"their predecessors i.e. Kailash Singh, Kapilash Singh
as well as Krushna Chandra Jena & Natabara Jena are
the purchasers of the case land from the co-sharers of
the father of Kamalakanta Sahu through sale deeds. For
which, in the Hal Settlement as well as in consolidation,
the case land was recorded jointly in their names along
with Ratnakara Sahu (father of Kamalakanta Sahu)."
7. After hearing from both the sides, Opp. Party No.13
allowed the Revision Case No.165 of 2007 as per the
impugned order dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure-13) filed by
(Kamalakanta Sahu-Opp. Party No.1 in this writ petition) and
directed to record the case land exclusively in the name of the
petitioner (Kamalakanta Sahu) under "Sthitiban Status" and
also directed to correct all records of the case land assigning
the reasons that,
"the case land is Sikim homestead land. When the
Sabik R.o.R of the case land was in the names of the
predecessors of Kamalakanta Sahu i.e. in the names of
Bauri Sahu, Raghu Sahoo, Bidyadhar Sahoo, Govinda
Sahu and Chakradhar Sahu and when Singh family
and Jena family are in no way related with the family of
the Sikim tenants Sahu family, then, at this juncture, the
case of the Singh family and Jena family for
continuation of their names in the R.o.R cannot be
acceptable under law. For which, Kamalakanta Sahu as
successor in interest of the Sabik recorded Sikim
tenants has right of occupancy over the case land.
Therefore, the right of occupancy of Kamalakanta Sahu
(petitioner in Revision Case No.165 of 2007) over the
case land is declared, as he (Kamalakanta Sahu) is the
successor-in-interest of all the sabik recorded Sikim
tenants thereof."
8. On being aggrieved with the impugned order dated
07.12.2016 (Annexure-13) passed in Revision Case
No.165/2007 by the Opp. Party No.13, the LRs of Kailash
Chandra Singh challenged the same by filing this writ petition
being the petitioners praying for quashing the Annexure-13
passed by the Opp. Party No.13.
9. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.1 (petitioner
in Revision Case No.165/2007) and the learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the State.
10. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the record of
right of the case land has been continuing as sikim land since
the Sabik settlement of the year 1929 till yet.
The status of the case land is homestead land.
The Sabik R.o.R of the case land vide Sabik Sikim Khata
No.15 was recorded in the names of Bauri Sahu, Raghu
Sahoo, Bidyadhar Sahoo, Govinda Sahu and Chakradhar
Sahu as Sikim tenants.
The Hal R.o.R of the case land under Sikim Hal Khata
No.2 (Annexure-7) was recorded in the names of Kailash
Chandra Singh, Kapilash Singh (the predecessors of the
petitioners) along with Krushna Chandra Jena, Natabar Jena
and Ratnakar Sahu (father of the Opp. Party No.1) in the year
1977.
The consolidation R.o.R of the case land was published
in the year 1986 vide Annexure-9 in the names of the same
persons as per Hal R.o.R of the year 1977.
11. The nature of rights of a sikim tenants has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In a case between Daitary Swain Vs. Kartika
Swain & Others reported in 2019 (II) OLR (F.B) 171
that, as per Section 4(1)(i) of the OLR Act, 1960, sikim
tenancy both with regard to homestead land and
agricultural land is transferable and heritable. (Para
Nos.9 & 10)
Sikim tenants have been recognized as under
Raiyats/sub-tenants. Such under Raiyats can become
Raiyats, when declaration is made as per the provisions
of Sub-sections (5) to (8) of Section 4 of the OLR Act,
1960. (Para No.6.1)
(II) In a case between Hari Jena & Others Vs.
Somanath Harichandan reported in 1974 (1) C.W.R.
387 that, how and under what process a sikim tenant
can become a Raiyat--Until the proceeding as envisaged
under Sub-sections (5) to (8) of Section 4 are concluded
by the Revenue Officer by passing an order declaring an
under Raiyat, to be Raiyat, a sikim tenant cannot be
deemed to be a Raiyat.
(III) In a case between Purusottam Choudhury Vs.
Commissioner, Consolidation and Others reported in
2000 (II) OLR 202 that, the matter which comes within
the purview of the revenue authority under OLR Act,
1960, the same is excluded from the jurisdiction of the
consolidation authorities. The consolidation authorities
have no jurisdiction to decide a question whether a
person was the sikim tenant or not.
(IV) In a case between Manmohan Rout and Others
vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 74 (1992) CLT
708 that, the conclusions of the authorities under OLR
Act is binding upon the consolidation authorities.
12. Here in this matter at hand, when the Hal R.o.R vide
Annexure-7 of the case land was published in the year, 1977
jointly in the names of Kailash Chandra Singh and Kapilash
Singh (predecessors of the petitioners), Krushna Chandra
Jena, Natabara Jena and Ratnakara Sahu (father of the Opp.
Party No.1) and when such finally published settlement R.o.R
of the case land under Khata No.2 vide Annexure-7 in the year
1977 had remained unchallenged by the predecessor of the
Opp. Party No.1 or by the Opp. Party No.1 and when in view of
the ratio of the Full Bench Decision of this Court between
Daitary Swain Vs. Kartika Swain & Others reported in
2019 (II) OLR (FB) 171 at Para Nos.9 & 10 that, the Right of
sikim Tenant in respect of both agricultural and homestead
land has become similar after coming into force of Orissa Act
29 of 1976 and when sikim right in respect of agricultural
land and homestead land both are heritable and transferable
and when a sikim tenant cannot be declared as a Raiyat
without complying the provisions of Sub-Sections (5) to (8) of
Section 4 of the OLR Act, 1960 and when the consolidation
authorities have no jurisdiction to declare any sikim tenant as
Raiyat entering into the jurisdiction of the OLR/Revenue
Authorities, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles
of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions indicated in
Para No.11 of this Judgment, it is held that, the Consolidation
Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in deciding the
matter through the impugned order dated 07.12.2016
(Annexure-13) entering into the jurisdiction of the
OLR/Revenue Authorities declaring sikim tenants as Raiyats.
Because, such power for declaration of the sikim tenant as
Raiyat can only be made by the OLR Authorities only after the
compliances of the provisions of Sub-Sections (5) to (8) of
Section 4 of the OLR Act, 1960.
13. When in this matter at hand, the revenue authorities
have not declared to the sikim tenants of the case land as
Raiyats, then, at this juncture, the declaration made by the
Consolidation Authorities i.e. Opp. Party No.13 in Revision
Case No.165 of 2007 to the petitioner thereof (Opp. Party No.1
in this writ petition) as occupancy Raiyat through the
impugned order dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure-13) cannot be
sustainable under law.
For which, there is justification under law for making
interference with the same through this writ petition filed by
the petitioners.
14. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioners. The same is to be allowed.
15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed on contest.
16. The impugned order dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure-13)
passed in Revision Case No.165 of 2007 by the Joint
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack (Opp.
Party No.13) is quashed (set aside).
17. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 28.11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
