Orissa High Court
Prashanta Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18609 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Prashanta Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. B. Routray,
Sr. Advocate.
assisted by
Mr. J. Biswal,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.10.2025
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 impugned order dated 06.07.2024 (Annexure-6) passed in
Misc. Case No.54 of 2024 (OSS-416 of 2015) by the Addl.
Commissioner-cum-Addl. Revision Court-III, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2)
and also to quash the order dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure-4) passed in Suo
Motu Objection Case No.10280 of 2013 by the Assistant Settlement
Page 1 of 15
Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) and to direct the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to record the case land in the name
of the petitioner correcting the same from the name of Government.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, one Hata Kishore Nayak S/o
Dharamu Nayak was a military personnel. As per his application, five
acres of land from the ear-marked land for Jawans i.e. from plot No.2076
under Khata No.645 in Mouza Andharua under Chandaka Police Station
in the District of Khordha was allotted to him (Hata Kishore Nayak) as
per order dated 30.12.1974 passed in (Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of 1974
by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.
Thereafter, in the year 1983, a Lease Revision Case No.155 of
1983 was initiated before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for
cancellation of the above lease, which was granted in favour of Hata
Kishore Nayak in (Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of 1974. As per the final
order dated 07.11.1983 passed in Lease Revision Case No.155 of 1983,
the settlement of the said land made in (Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of
1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favour of Hata Kishore Nayak
was cancelled on the ground of his ineligibility to get the same.
3. On being aggrieved with the said order of cancellation of
settlement passed in Lease Revision Case No.155 of 1983 by the A.D.M.,
Page 2 of 15
Bhubaneswar, Hata Kishore Nayak filed an O.G.L.S. Appeal No.2 of
1985 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack, but that
O.G.L.S. Appeal No.2 of 1985 was dismissed on dated 08.01.1987.
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing a writ petition before
this Court vide O.J.C. No.1689 of 1987.
4. After hearing, as per its final judgment dated 07.05.1991 passed in
O.J.C. No.1689 of 1987 by this Court, the writ petition filed by Hata
Kishore Nayak vide O.J.C. No.1689 of 1987 was allowed and the order of
cancellation of settlement of land was set aside and the settlement of land
i.e. five acres in favour of Hata Kishore Nayak in (Jawan) W.L. Case
No.1860 of 1974 was restored.
5. When the judgment dated 07.05.1991 passed in O.J.C. No.1689 of
1987 in favour of Hata Kishore Nayak was not complied, then he (Hata
Kishore Nayak) filed another writ petition vide O.J.C. No.9812 of 1993,
wherein, direction was given to give effect to the judgment dated
07.05.1991
passed in O.J.C. No.1689 of 1987.
6. On the basis of the directions given by this Court in O.J.C. No.9812
of 1993, the Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3 of the said allotted land
i.e. five acres from Plot No.2076 under Khata No.645 in Mouza Andharua
was prepared in the name of Hata Kishore Nayak creating a separate Plot
vide Plot No.2076/3263 under separate Khata vide Khata No.645/137 for
Ac.5.00 decimals and since then, Hata Kishore Nayak paid the rents for
the same in his name and obtained rent receipts.
Thereafter, Hata Kishore Nayak sold Ac0.055 decimals out of
Ac5.00 decimals from Plot No.2076/3263 under Khata No.645/137 in
Mouza Andharua to the petitioner through R.S.D. No.3225 dated
05.07.1996 as per Annexure-2 and delivered possession thereof. Since
then, the petitioner had/has been possessing his said purchased Ac0.055
decimals from Plot No.2076/3263 in Mouza Andharua being the
exclusive owner thereof.
The said Hata Kishore Nayak had also sold other portions of that
Plot No.2076/3263 to Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala Kumari Rout
through separate sale deeds like the petitioner. The said purchased
properties of Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala Kumari Rout from Hata
Kishore Nayak have already been recorded in their names separately and
separate R.o.Rs have already been prepared in the names of Bijay
Chandra Sahu and Kuntala Kumari Rout.
When settlement operation was started in the year 2013 in the area
of the case land, during the stage of yadast, the records of the above
purchased Ac0.055 decimals of land of the petitioner (which is the case
land) were prepared in favour of the petitioner for recording the same in
his name on the basis of his R.S.D. No.3225 dated 05.07.1996. But,
during rent stage of the settlement operation, the ASO, Rental Colony,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) initiated a Suo Motu Objection Case vide
Objection Case No.10280 of 2013 and passed an order on dated
15.07.2013 (Annexure-4) for recording the case land i.e. Ac0.055
decimals (which is the purchased land of the petitioner) in the name of the
Government under Government Khata stating about the lot of
irregularities in the Tahasil level in different lease cases giving reference
of the judgment dated 29.01.1996 passed in O.J.C. No.9449 of 1993 in
respect of the properties of other mouza, which has no nexus/connection
with the case land.
Then, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 15.07.2013
(Annexure-4) passed in Objection Case No.10280 of 2013 by the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) by
filing a writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.17233 of 2015.
That W.P.(C) No.17233 of 2015 filed by the petitioner was
disposed of on dated 16.10.2015 finally giving liberty to the petitioner to
file an appropriate application for correction of R.o.R. before the
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Bhubaneswar.
On the basis of the liberty granted by this Court in the order dated
16.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.17233 of 2015, the petitioner filed a
revision u/S 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 before the Addl.
Commissioner-cum-Addl. Revision Court-III, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2)
vide O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015 praying for recording his purchased
Ac0.055 decimals of land from Plot No.2076/3263 corresponding to Hal
Plot No.4835 under Hal Khata No.2876 in his name.
That O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015 was dismissed by the Addl.
Commissioner-cum-Addl. Revision Court-III (O.P. No.2) on dated
06.07.2024 (Annexure-6) assigning the reasons that,
"the documents reveal that, the Kissam of the suit Plot No.4835
has been recorded as Jungle under Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata
and it reveals from the para-wise report of Settlement Officer,
Cuttack submitted through letter dated 26.02.2020 that, in both
Sabik and Hal Khata, the Kisam of suit land was Chhota Jungle.
So changing the Kisam of Jungle land to non-forest Kisam is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. The petitioner has not submitted the copy
of lease case record (Lease Case No.1160 of 1974). As a result,
the flow of title of the suit land is not established in favour of the
petitioner. In the absence of the lease case record and trace map,
it is difficult on the part of this Court to know whether the patch
of land that, the petitioner is claiming was actually been leased
out or not. Hence, I do find the order of Lower Settlement
Authority to be just and proper by recording the suit land in
Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata and in keeping the suit land in
Jungle Kisam. Therefore, I am not inclined to record a Govt.
Land in the name of private individual, where suit Hal plot is in
Jungle Kisam. Consequently, the present revision is liable for
rejection. As such, the revision petition is hereby DISMISSED."
7. On being aggrieved with the above order of rejection to the
Revision of the Petitioner vide O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015 by the Addl.
Commissioner-cum-Addl. Revision Court No.III (O.P. No.2), the
petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the
impugned order dated 06.07.2024 (Annexure-6) passed in O.S.S. Case
No.416 of 2015 by the O.P. No.2 and the impugned order dated
15.07.2013 (Annexure-4) passed in Suo Motu Objection Case No.10280
of 2013 by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar
(O.P. No.4) and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to
record the purchased Ac.0.055 decimals of land from plot No.2076/3263
under Khata No.645/137 in Mouza-Andharua corresponding to Hal Plot
No.4835 under Khata No.2876 in the name of the petitioner under
Sthitiban Status with Kisam Sarada Tini.
8. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
9. It appears from the records as well as from the judgment dated
07.05.1991 (Annexure-1) passed by this Court in OJC No.1689 of 1987
and judgment passed in OJC No.9812 of 1993 that, Ac.5.00 decimals
(five acres) land of plot No.2076 under Khata No.645 in Mouza-
Andharua was settled/allotted in the name of the vendor of the petitioner
i.e. Hata Kishore Nayak by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) in
(Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of 1974 and the said settlement/allotment of
Ac.5.00 decimals of land from plot No.2076 in favour of Hata Kishore
Nayak (vendor of the petitioner) has not been cancelled or set aside as yet
by any competent authority, rather the said settlement/allotment of five
acres land from Plot No.2076 in favour of Hata Kishore Nayak was
confirmed as per judgment dated 07.05.1991 passed in OJC No.1689 of
1987 vide Annexure-1 followed by the issuance of Jamabandi Register
vide Annexure-3 by the O.P. No.5 (Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) in respect
of the same in favour of Hata Kishore Nayak.
10. It also appears from the record vide Annexures-7 Series that, the
said Hata Kishore Nayak, out of the settled land i.e. Ac.5.00 decimals
(five acres) from plot No.2076/3263 in his favour, he (Hata Kishore
Nayak) had sold parts thereof to Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala Kumari
Rout and Ac.0.055 decimals to the petitioner through R.S.D. No.3235
dated 05.07.1996 (Annexure-2). Hata Kishore Nayak was paying rent of
that Ac.5.00 decimals of land in his name to the Government on the basis
of the preparation of Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3 in his name.
The kisam of the said settled Plot No.2076/3263 under Khata No.645/137
as per Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3 in the name of Hata Kishore
Nayak was Sarada Tini.
The portions of the settled land from plot No.2076/3263 (those
were sold by Hata Kishore Nayak to Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala
Kumari Rout like the petitioner) have already been recorded in their
names separately on the basis of the judgment and order passed by this
Court in WP(C) No.24236 of 2014 and WP(C) No.20105 of 2018
(Annexure-7 Series).
11. When the settlement of the case land in favour of the vendor of the
petitioner i.e. Hata Kishore Nayak through (Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860
of 1974 has not been cancelled, rather the same has been confirmed by
this Court and when the portions of the settled land (those were alienated
by Hata Kishore Nayak in favour of Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala
Kumari Rout) have already been recorded in their names separately
through separate R.o.R and when the Jamabandi Register (Annexure-3) in
respect of the case land was prepared in the name of the vendor of the
petitioner vide Annexure-3 having its status as Sarada Tini, then at this
juncture, now the question arises, :-
"whether O.P. Nos.2 & 4 had power and jurisdiction to pass
orders for the refusal of the recording of the purchased land i.e.
Ac0.055 decimals of Plot No.2076/3263 from Hata Kishore
Nayak in the name of the petitioner stating that, the same is
Government land and the Kisam thereof is Jungle and whether
the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar can be directed for recording of
the case land i.e. Ac0.055 decimals out of the plot No.2076/3263
corresponding to Hal Plot No.4835 under Khata No.2876 in the
name of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed dated
05.07.1996 and sketch map attached therewith vide Annexure-
2?"
As per Annexure-3, Jamabandi Register of the purchased properties
of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.2076/3263 under Khata No.645/137
(Annexure-3) having its Kisam as Sarada Tini was prepared by the
Government including the O.P. Nos.3 & 5 in the name of the vendor of
the petitioner i.e. Hata Kishore Nayak. The said Jamabandi Register vide
Annexure-3 was neither cancelled nor set aside.
12. The meaning of Jamabandi Register as per Lexicon of Revenue
Terms is:
"A continuous khatian maintained in Tahasil Office."
13. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Shri Jadu Bhoi and Shri Padma Bhoi Vrs.
State of Orissa passed in Revision Case No.3372 of 1975 reported in
J.B.R. Vol. XV (1978) Part IV in Para 2 that,
unless the lease is cancelled, the land should be recorded in favour of the lessee
(Petitioner).
(ii) In a case between Chandy Varghese & Others Vrs. K. Abdul
Khader and others reported in 96 (2003) CLT 700 (SC) that,
lease means, a transfer of interest in land. So, the lessee has a
transferable interest in the land. But, he cannot transfer more than his
interest in the land.
(iii) In a case between Sabita Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others reported in 2023 (I) CLR 463 that,
the ASO exercised suo motu power to override the order of the
ADM under the OGLS Act. Held, the order passed by the ASO is without
jurisdiction.
14. As per the sub-Clause 4 of Rule 29 of The Odisha Survey and
Settlement Rules, 1962, after final publication of R.o.R. and map by the
Settlement Authorities on completion of the settlement operation in
respect of particular area/mouza,
"the copy of the map and the record-of-rights finally
published under sub-rule (1) shall remain in the
custody of the Tahasildar."
15. As per Para No.24 of The Odisha Mutation Manual,
"after final publication of the R.o.R. and map by the Settlement
Authorities, when the same remained under the custody of the
Tahasildar, the Tahasildar on the basis of the grounds enumerated
in Rule 34 of The Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 can
correct the R.o.R. and as per Clause (e) of Rule 34 of The Odisha
Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, power of the Tahasildar for
correction of the R.o.R. is very elastic and covers not only changes
in ownership or occupation but also can change the classification
of the land, x x x etc. The wide scope of mutation proceeding casts
a heavy responsibility on the Tahasildar and the Tahasildar cannot
discharge the said responsibility awaiting for application or
intimations from the person or Authority for starting such a
proceeding for the changing of the above mentioned things
including classification of the land in all cases. For which, the
Tahasildar should Suo Motu take cognizance of all prima facie
mutation cases which come to his notice while engaged in any
other duty."
16. Here in this matter at hand, when the Jamabandi Register
(Annexure-3) of the case land prepared by the O.Ps in the name of the
vendor of the petitioner i.e. Hata Kishore Nayak in respect of the case
land had remained unchallenged and when the status/kisam of the case
land in the said Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3 was Sarada Tini
with fixation of rent and cess in the name of the vendor of the petitioner
and when the settlement/allotment of the case land in favour of the vendor
of the petitioner through (Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of 1974 has not
been cancelled or set aside and when as per law, the vendor of the
petitioner had transferrable/alienable interest in the case land and when
the O.Ps have already prepared the R.o.Rs of the part of the settled land of
the vendor of the petitioner in favour of his other vendees/transferees i.e.
Bijay Chandra Sahu and Kuntala Kumari Rout, then at this juncture, by
applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions
referred to supra , the O.P. No.4 (ASO, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar)
and O.P. No.2 (Addl. Commissioner-cum-Addl. Revision Court-III)
should not have passed the impugned orders in Objection Case No.10280
of 2013 and O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015 vide Annexure-4 & 6 refusing to
record the case land i.e. Ac0.055 decimals on the basis of the trace map
attached with his purchased deed i.e. R.S.D. No.3225 dated 05.07.1996
vide Annexure-2 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that, the
petitioner could not file the copy of the lease case record in respect of
(Jawan) W.L. Case No.1860 of 1974 and recording of the said land in the
Hal settlement as Jungle under Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata, when the
O.Ps themselves have prepared the Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3
in the name of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Hata Kishore Nayak
reflecting the status of the settled land as Sarada Tini, for which, the O.Ps
including the O.P. Nos.2 & 4 were estopped under law as per Section 115
of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 121 of the BSA, 2023) to express
that, the status of the case land is Jungle.
That apart, as per the Order dated 04.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.20105 of 2018 in favour of one purchaser of the vendor of the
petitioner from the settled land, namely, Kuntala Kumari Rout, this Court
had directed for correction of R.o.R. from Jungle kisam to the kisam,
which was in the Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3.
17. So, as per the discussions and observations made above, the
impugned order dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure-4) passed in Objection Case
No.10280 of 2013 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) and the impugned order dated 06.07.2024
passed in O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015 by the Addl. Commissioner-cum-
Addl. Revision Court-III, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) cannot be sustainable
under law. The same are liable to be quashed (set aside) and the kisam of
the case land is liable to be corrected from jungle kisam to its kisam as
per Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-3.
As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same is to be allowed.
18. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The impugned order dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure-4) passed in Suo
Motu Objection Case No.10280 of 2013 by the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) and the impugned
dated 06.07.2024 (Annexure-6) passed in Misc. Case No.54 of 2024
(O.S.S. Case No.416 of 2015) by the Addl. Commissioner-cum-Addl.
Revision Court-III, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) are quashed.
As in the meantime, the final publication of the R.o.R. and map by
the Settlement Authorities in respect of the Mouza of the case land has
already been completed, for which, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.5) is directed to prepare the R.o.R of the case land on the basis of the
sale deed dated 05.07.1996 (Annexure-2) and its trace map in respect of
Ac0.055 decimals from Hal Plot No.4835 under Hal Khata No.2876
corresponding to Plot No.2076/3263 under Khata No.645/137 in the name
of the petitioner (Prashanta Kumar Sahu) correcting the kisam of the same
from Jungle kisam to its kisam as per Jamabandi Register vide Annexure-
19. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
17.10.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
