Orissa High Court
Tilottama Bahinipati vs State Of Odisha on 13 November, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.19620 OF 2024
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Tilottama Bahinipati ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
2. Assistant Settlement Officer, Khordha, Camp at
Bhubaneswar, Rental Conoly, Bhubaneswar
3. Collector, Khordha
4. Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar,
5. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Mukherji, Senior Advocate
being assisted by
Ms. Arusmita Acharya, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 13.11.2025
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated
2nd July, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in WL Case No.1278 of 1974 initiated under Section
3-B of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
brevity 'the Act'), whereby, the lease granted to the lessee was
resumed. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the authorities
to prepare the RoR in the name of the Petitioner.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, WL Case No.1278 of 1974
was initiated by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and Plot No.1958
of Khata No.805 to an extent of Ac.1.000 dec. under mouza-
Andharua in the district of Khordha (previously in the district of
Puri) (for brevity 'the case land') was leased out in favour of one
Kumar Swain, son of Indira Swain of Andharua (for brevity 'the
lessee'). After death of the lessee, his widow, namely, Hara
Bewa obtaining permission of the Revenue Officer, sold the case
land to the Petitioner vide RSD No.3336 dated 15th January, 1982
(Annexure-1) for legal necessity and delivered possession. Since
then, the Petitioner possesses the case land exercising her right,
title and interest thereon. When the matter stood thus, the
Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated Revision
Case No.169 of 1986 against the lessee, namely, Kumar Swain
under Section 7-A (3) of the Act and the lease was cancelled vide
order dated 23rd July, 1987. Since the Petitioner was not afforded
with any opportunity of hearing in Revision Case No.169 of
1986, she approached this Court in OJC No.10590 of 1996 and
this Court, vide order dated 23rd June, 1997, set aside the order
dated 23rd July, 1987 and remitted the matter to the Additional
District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing of the
Revision Case providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar
heard the Revision Case afresh and vide his order dated 31st
October, 2020, confirmed the lease granted in WL Case No.1278
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
of 1974. He, further held the transfer of the case land by Hara
Bewa to the Tilottama Bahinipati (the Petitioner) to be
established as per the evidence and materials on record.
Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for mutation of the case land
in her name. Form-K was issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
on 8th June, 2001. Since the settlement operation in the area had
already commenced by then, the Petitioner produced all
documents before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court,
Bhubaneswar on 15th July, 2013. However, the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Bhubaneswar directed to record
the land in the name of the State Government. Assailing the
same, the Petitioner filed Suit No.1153 of 2013 under Section 22
(2-b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity
'the Settlement Act'). The Additional Sub- Collector,
Bhubaneswar disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 5th
September, 2013 directing the Petitioner to approach the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar or any other forum for redressal of her
claim. As the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the grievance of the Petitioner and it was not redressed
by the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, the Appellate
Authority, Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C). No.3456 of
2014. However, taking into consideration that final RoR under
Section 12-B of the Settlement Act was published by then, this
Court, vide order dated 4th April, 2018, declined to interfere with
the matter and disposed of the writ petition advising the
Petitioner to file revision before the competent Authority,
namely, Board of Revenue under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement
Act. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed WA No.1615 of
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
2023 contending that a writ petition would be maintainable
assailing the order of Settlement Authority without availing the
statutory remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement Act, as
the Settlement Authorities had not followed the mandatory
provisions of law while adjudicating the matter. The said Writ
Appeal was allowed vide order dated 30th August, 2023 relying
upon the judgment of Narottam Rath vrs. State of Odisha and
others and order passed in W.P.(C). No.3456 of 2014 was set
aside. While directing the Authorities to record the case land in
the name of the Petitioner, this Court in the Writ Appeal also
granted leave to State Government to initiate proceeding under
Section 3-B of the Act to resume the case land, if it is required.
Pursuant to the direction in WA No.1615 of 2023, the Petitioner
filed Mutation Case No.31446 of 2023 before the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated
10th October, 2023, directed the concerned Revenue Inspector
(RI) to make an enquiry in respect of the case land and submit
report. But, subsequently, no order was passed in the Mutation
Case after receipt of the inquiry report of the RI wherein, it was
observed that the Petitioner was using the case land for
agricultural purpose. During pendency of Mutation Case
No.31446 of 2023, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar suo-motu
initiated Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024 pursuant to the
direction of this Cout in WA No.1615 of 2023. In the meantime,
the Petitioner had also filed a contempt proceeding against the
Opposite Parties for not proceeding with the Mutation Case and
not complying with the order of this Court. Thereafter, the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar proceeded with Mutation Case
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
No.5899 of 2024 and asked for enquiry report of the RI, who
reported that the land was lying fallow and not being used for
agricultural purpose. Ultimately, the case land was mutated in
the name of the Petitioner in Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024.
Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar closed Mutation Case
No.31446 of 2023 vide order dated 5th April, 2024.
Subsequently, on the basis of the RI Report dated 19th March,
2024, submitted in Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024, a proceeding
under Section 3-B of the Act was initiated against the Petitioner
on 6th April, 2024, i.e., only after two days after the case land
was mutated in the name of the Petitioner and the impugned
order under Annexure-9 has been passed, which is under
challenge in this writ petition.
4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned order under
Annexure-9, it is crystal clear that the case land was directed to
be resumed on the solitary ground that the same was not being
used for the purpose it was leased out. It was observed in the
impugned order that the case land was lying fallow and was not
being used for agricultural purpose, for which, it was leased out.
It is his submission that only because the case land remained
vacant at the time of field visit of the RI, it cannot be presumed
that the case land was not used for agricultural purpose. In
support of his case, he relied upon the case of Smt. Sandhya
Rout and others vrs. State of Odisha and others; 2005 SCC
OnLine Ori 244, wherein it is held as under:
"5. A bare reading of the above provision shows that the
authorized officer can resume any land settled by him if he
has reasons to believe that the person with whom the land
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
was settled has used it for any purpose other than that for
which it was settled.
6. On going through the impugned order dated
16.11.2002 (Annexure-9) it transpires that the Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on spot enquiry found that the land
is lying vacant and not being used for agriculture purpose.
From the above finding it cannot be said that the land has
been used for any other purpose other than that for which it
was settled inasmuch as just because the land was lying
vacant it cannot be concluded that the said land was not
being used for agriculture purpose for which the land was
settled in the instant case."
(emphasis supplied)
4.1. He also relied upon the case of Kailash Nath Patnaik vrs.
State of Odisha and others; AIR 2020 Ori 163, wherein it is held
as under:
"8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and perused the materials placed before us. Admittedly,
the case land was settled in favour of opposite party No. 5 in
WL Case No. 850 of 1974 following due procedure of law.
There is no finding either in the order under Annexure-4
passed by Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar or in the order
under Annexure-5 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar
to the effect that the Tahasildar has misused the power under
the Act to settle the case land in favour of opposite party No. 5.
Now the question arises as to whether the case land was being
used for a purpose other than agriculture for which it was
leased out in favour of opposite party No. 5. It is the
categorical observation of the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar
(OP No. 2) that the case land was lying fallow at the time of
local inspection by the Revenue Inspector along with
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Only because the case land was
lying fallow at the time of local inspection, it cannot be a
ground for reasonable presumption that the case land was
being used for a purpose other than agriculture. There is no
material on record to come to a conclusion that the case land
was being used for any specific purpose other than
agriculture. Neither the petitioner nor the Opp. Party No. 5-
lessee was noticed at the time of local inspection, if any. As
such, the findings of the Courts below to the effect that the
case land was used for a purpose other than agriculture, is
without any basis. In absence of any specific finding to the
effect that the case land was, in fact, being used for a
particular purpose other than agriculture, the provision of
Section 3-8 of the Act has no application to the facts of the
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
case. In the case of Sri. Narana Nayak (supra), this Court
observed as follows:."
(emphasis supplied)
4.2. He, therefore, submits that there being no evidence on record
to the effect that the case land was being used for the purpose other
than agriculture for which it was settled in favour of the lessee.
Thus, it cannot be said that the case land was not being used for
agricultural purpose. He further submits that the case land was
leased out in favour of Kumar Swain. After his death, his widow,
namely, Hara Bewa, sold the same to the Petitioner by virtue of the
RSD and delivered possession. The legality and regularity of
settlement made in favour of Kumar Swain was tested in a
proceeding under Section 7-A (3) of the Act and was ultimately
lease granted in favour of the lessee was confirmed. Pursuant to the
direction of this Court in WA No.1615 of 2023, the case land was
also recorded in favour of the Petitioner. Only after two days of
recording of the case land in favour of the Petitioner, a proceeding
under Section 3-B of the Act was initiated. Thus, initiation of the
proceeding on the basis of a RI report and order passed therein are
per-se illegal. From the impugned order under Annexure-9, it
appears that on field verification, the RI report could observe that
there were some recently planted saplings of papaya trees available
on the case land and the case land was surrounded by boundary
wall. Thus, it cannot not be said that the case land was not being
used for agricultural purpose. In that view of the matter, he prays
for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9 and to
direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the case land in
favour of the Petitioner.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
5. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel, although,
admitted the factual possession as narrated above, but, he submits
that the case land was not being used for the purpose it was leased
out. There was violation of both Section 3-B (a) and (b) of the Act.
It is submitted that after grant of lease the RoR (Annexure-A/5 to
the counter affidavit) of the case land was published in the name of
Kumar Swain, the lessee on 24th November, 1981 with an
endorsement that the land shall not be transferred within five years
from the date of preparation of the RoR. But, the case land was
alienated only after 51 days of preparation of the RoR under
Annexure-A/5. The sale deed was executed on 15th January, 1982
under Annexure-1. Thus, the transfer itself is void in view of
Section 6-A of the Odisha land Reforms Act. He further submits
that there are materials on record to show that the case land was not
being used for agricultural purpose. It was lying fallow at the time
of field inquiry by the concerned RI. It is also submitted that the
Petitioner has a statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 7 of the
Act against the impugned order passed under Section 3-B of the
Act. Without availing the same, this writ petition has been filed.
Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.
5.1. In support of his case, Mr. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel places reliance on Nivedita Sharma vrs. Cellular
Operators Association of India and others; (2011), 14 SCC 337,
wherein it is held as under:
"16. It can, thus, be said that this Court has recognised
some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. However,
the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of
Taxes and other similar judgments that the High Court will
not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
person or the statute under which the action complained of
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance still holds the field."
(emphasis supplied)
5.2. He also relies upon the decision of Zaidul Haque vrs. State
of Jharkhand and others, 2015 SCC OnLine, Jhar 92, wherein it is
held as under:
"7....................The petitioner has not produced any
material even to Indicate that the legal heirs of original
lessee have not violated the terms and conditions of the lease
agreement. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in "Jagat Nath Mukherjee v. State of Bihar
(supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the resumption order
was passed on the ground that the lessee constructed the
shop and let-out for the commercial purposes. This Court
found that in view of specific clause in the lease-deed for
increase in rent if the premises are used for commercial
purposes, the order of resumption could not have been
passed. The present is a case entirely different on facts."
(emphasis supplied)
5.3. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality in the order
of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in resuming the case
land.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case
record as well as the case laws cited.
7. As stated earlier, the lease granted in favour of Kumar
Swain, the lessee, was confirmed by the Additional District
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in exercise of power under Section 7-A
(3) of the Act. After death of the lessee, the case land was
transferred by Hara Bewa, his widow to the Petitioner vide
registered sale deed under Annexure-1. It is also not in dispute that
this Court in WA No.1615 of 2023 directed to record the case land
in the name of the Petitioner. While disposing of the Writ Appeal,
the Co-ordinate Bench observed that the State Government is at
liberty to initiate proceeding under Section 3-B of the Act, if
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
required. Even after direction of this Court, the Petitioner could not
immediately get the case land mutated in her name. She had
approached the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by filing Mutation Case
No.31446 of 2023 immediately after the disposal of WA No.1516
of 2023. However, ultimately, the case land was recorded in the
name of the Petitioner in Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024 initiated
suo-motu by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 4th April, 2024.
Accordingly, Mutation Case No.31466 of 2023 filed by the
Petitioner was closed vide order dated 5th April, 2024. Two days
thereafter, Misc. Case No.2812 of 2024 was initiated on the file of
Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under Section 3-B of the Act.
In Mutation Case No.31466 of 2023, the RI submitted a report
stating that the case land was being used for agricultural purpose.
But, in Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024 initiated suo-motu by
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the RI reported that the land was lying
fallow. It is not known as to why Mutation Case No.5899 of 2024
was initiated suo motu when Mutation Case No.31446 of 2023 was
pending before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. It may be to create
evidence to initiate a proceeding under Section 3-B of the Act.
7.1 In addition to that, in the case of Sandhya Rout and
Kailashnath (supra), this Court categorically held that only because
the land was lying fallow at the time of field visit, it cannot be
presumed that the land is not being used for agricultural purpose.
Thus, the finding of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the
impugned order to the effect that the case land was not being used
for agricultural purpose as it was lying fallow, is contrary to the
settled position of law and thus cannot be sustained. Section 3-B of
the Act reads as under;
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
"3-B. Resumption of land and imposition of penalty :-
Any officer authorized under clause (e) of section
3 may resume any land settled by him, if he has reasons
to believe that
(a) the person with whom the land was settled, has used
it for any purpose other than that for which it was
settled; or
(b) the person, other than homesteadless person or
landless agricultural labourer, has not used the land for
a period exceeding three years from the date of such
settlement, and may impose a penalty of an amount not
exceeding one thousand rupees on such person :
Provided that no order under this section shall be passed
without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter:
Provided further that any land settled prior to the
commencement of the Odisha Government Land
Settlement (Amendment) Act, 2013, if not used within a
period of three years from the date of such
commencement, the authorized officer shall resume such
land.".
8. In the instant case, the case land was leased out in favour of
the lessee for agricultural purpose. The Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar basing upon the report of the RI submitted in
Mutation Case No. 5899 of 2024 initiated proceeding under Section
3-B of the Act alleging that the case land was not used for
agricultural purpose. Thus, the proceeding appears to have been
initiated under Section 3-B (a) of the Act. Neither there is any
allegation nor is there any material to arrive at a conclusion that the
case land was being used for any other purpose. In view of the
settled law in Sandhya Rout and Kailashnath (supra), the
impugned order is not sustainable on this solitary ground. No other
finding to resume the land was recorded by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the order under Annexure-9 in WL
Case No. 1278 of 1974.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
9. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel, however,
submits that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 7
of the Act to assail the order under Annexure-9 passed under
Section 3-B of the Act. In the instant case, the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar acted without jurisdiction in initiating the
proceeding under Section 3-B of the Act on the basis of RI report
without examining the position of law on the issue. In the case of
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vrs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-
Assessing Authority and others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, it is
held as under;
"4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to
say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by
Article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain
orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as
"not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy
provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the
parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The
power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary
in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must
be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in
this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of
other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article
226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on
the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that
exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy
under the very statute which has been invoked and has
given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought
not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that
the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has
not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it
cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its
dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in
mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion
whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-
imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under article
226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the
High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition,
where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is
available. At the same time, it must be remembered that
mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or
revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
High Court under article 226 has not pursued, would not
oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ
petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this
court has made it clear that availability of an alternative
remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the
"maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which
requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided
by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be
restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a
writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real
distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The
objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the
matter and if such objection were found to be of substance,
the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the
lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of
"entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of
the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ
petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained
by a High Court for very many reasons or relief could even
be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal
point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public
interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court
on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the
alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an
exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment
would not be proper.
6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph
15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved
out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court
would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the
party approaching it not having availed the alternative
remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under :
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of
the /fundamental rights ;
(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural
justice
(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction ; or
(iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the case of Narrotam Rath vs. State of Odisha and others
in W.P.(C) No. 1608 of 2014, this Court vide order dated 14th
October, 2025 held as under;
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
"8.5. Thus, relegating the Petitioner to file a revision under
Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act will serve no purpose and
the Petitioner will be further harassed in facing unnecessary
litigations. Thus, this Court is constrained to hold that the
argument advanced by Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate is not acceptable in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vrs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1
held as under;
"20. Much water has flown under the bridge, but there has
been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old
continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the
jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the
alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a
case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is
shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp
jurisdiction without any legal foundation."
12. In view of the ratio, as aforesaid, it cannot be held that the
writ petition under Article 227 against an order is not maintainable,
when a statutory remedy is available to assail the same. Further
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and discussion made above no fruitful purpose will be served by
relegating the Petitioner to move a statutory appeal to assail the
order under Annexure-9. On the other hand, there is every
likelihood that the Petitioner will be further harassed by pursuing a
statutory remedy, more particularly, when this Court has already
directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the case land in the
name of the Petitioner in WA No.1615 of 2023.
13. It is also contended by Mr. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel that the land was alienated by the widow of the
lessee within 51 days of publication of the RoR in the name of the
lessee, though there was a restriction to the alienation of the case
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
land within 5 years of settlement in favour of the lessee. He also
alleged that there is violation of Section 6-A of the Orissa Land
Reforms Act, 1960. But, the lease deed in question is not produced
by the State to ascertain as to when the land was settled. On the
other hand, order dated 12th April, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed in
W.L. Case No. 1278 of 1974 clearly reveals that the land was
settled in favour of Kumar Swain on 29th May, 1974 and the sale
deed in respect of the case land was executed by the widow of the
lessee on 15th January, 1982, i.e., much beyond five years. The
endorsement/remark in the RoR cannot be treated as a ground to
cancel the lease. Further, Section 3-B of the Act does not
contemplate cancellation of the lease for violation of any lease
condition. The said issue has already been adjudicated in a
proceeding under Section 7-A (3) of the Act. Thus, at this stage, no
such contention can be raised for adjudication when the lease
granted in favour of Kumar Swain, the lessee has already been
confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in
entertaining a revision under Section 7-A (3) of the Act.
14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order under Annexure-9 is
not sustainable and initiation of the proceeding under Section 3-B
of the Act itself was misconceived and without any basis. Hence,
the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2014 under Annexure-9 passed
by Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. No. 1278 of 1974
is set aside.
15. In Letter No.3235/RTI-(33/2024) dated 22nd May, 2024
(Annexure-12 to the rejoinder affidavit), the Public Information
Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chandaka Wildlife
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 16:59:38
Division, Bhubaneswar has clarified that the case land is neither
recorded under jungle Kisam nor available in DLC report. It also
reveals from Letter No.2186/4F (F.C. Act and Lease)-19/2024
Bhubaneswar dated 4th April, 2024 of the Divisional Forest Officer,
Chandaka Wildlife Division, Bhubaneswar that as per Sabik
settlement record the Kisam of the land was 'Sarad 3'. Thus, there
is no impediment for mutation of the case land in the name of the
Petitioner. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Dash, learned
Additional Standing Counsel that as per Annexure-A/5, the case
land was recorded under 'Chhota Jungle Kisam'. But, in view of
the clarification of the Forest Department that the Kisam of the case
land as per Sabik RoR was 'Sarada-3' and it is not coming under
the DLC, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar should record the case land
in favour of the Petitioner under 'Sarad-3 Kisam'. Thus, the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to prepare the RoR in the
name of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date
of production of certified copy of the judgment.
16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 13th Day of November, 2025///Rojalin///
