Orissa High Court
Purusottam Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 17 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18158 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
Purusottam Nayak ... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha and Others ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Parida. Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Additional
Standing Counsel (for the State).
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying
for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.12.2024(Annexure-4)
passed in SRP No.2248 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner,
Additional Revisional Court No.II(Opposite Party No.2).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted
the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per the impugned order
dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4), the Additional Commissioner,
Additional Revisional Court No.II(Opposite Party No.2) remanded
SRP No.2248 of 2014 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding
the case by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. For which, the petitioner
has filed this writ petition to quash the Annexure-4.
3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties(State).
4. Law on this aspect has already been clarified by this Court in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Anantadan Suna and others vrs.
Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation,
Berhampur and others : reported in 2021(I) OLR-871
that, the Commissioner while deciding a revision under
Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 cannot remand the
matter to the Tahasilar to take a final decision in the said
matter. Because, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction
to delegate his power to the Tahasildar, who is not
competent under law to exercise the power, which is
invested under law with the Commissioner as per
Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958. At the time of
hearing of any revision, if necessary for deciding the
same, the Commissioner may call for a report from the
Tahasildar and can decide the revision finally taking the
report of the Tahasildar, other materials and law into
account. Therefore, it was held by the High Court that,
the operative portion of the impugned order relating to
the remand of the case to the Tahasildar for deciding the
same is unsustainable in the eye of law. For which, the
High Court felt it proper to remit the matter back to the
Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter after
giving opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(ii) In a case between Pradyumna Kumar Panda vrs.
Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar and others : reported in
2019(I) OLR-659 that, the Commissioner of Land
Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack cannot remand
the matter to the Tahasildar for deciding the same by the
Tahasildar. For which, the matter concerning the remand
was quashed and direction was given to the
Commissioner to hear the revision afresh after setting
aside the remand order.
(iii) In a case between Sarat Chandra Sahu vrs.
Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa
Cuttack and others : reported in 82(1996) CLT
321(D.B.) that, the provisions envisaged in Section
15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 empowers the
Commissioner for deciding the revision in relation to the
final publication of the Record of rights. The statutory
authority being empowered with the statutory powers
shall decide the revision by it in proper manner. So, the
litigants will have a sense of satisfaction that, their
grievances have been appropriately dealt with. For
which, as per law, the Commissioner himself is required
to address the case on its merits, but, instead of doing so,
he should not have remanded the matter to an another
authority for its adjudication. Therefore, the operative
portion of the impugned order relating to remand is
absolutely unsustainable. For which, the revisional
authority was directed by the High Court to decide the
revision afresh and the remand order passed by the
Commissioner was set aside.
5. Here, in this matter at hand, when the Additional
Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party
No.2) remanded the matter vide SRP No.2248 of 2014 to the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the same without deciding the
same itself and when the statute only empowers the Commissioner
to decide the revision itself and when statute does not empower the
Commissioner to delegate its revisional power to the Tahasildar for
deciding the case by the Tahasildar and when, in the impugned
order, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court
No.II (Opposite Party No.2) has delegated his power to the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the case, then at this juncture,
by applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid
decisions, it is held that, the impugned dated 31.12.2024 passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II
(Opposite Party No.2) in SRP No.2248 of 2014 cannot be
sustainable under law.
6. Therefore, there is justification under for making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
7. For which, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned order dated 31.12.2024(Annexure-4) passed in SRP
No.2248 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional
Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) is quashed.
8. The matter vide SRP No.2248 of 2014 is remitted back to the
Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II
(Opposite Party No.2) to decide the same afresh as per law after
giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and others, if any, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months
from the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment.
9. The parties of this writ petition are directed to appear in the
court of the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court
No.II (Opposite Party No.2) in SRP No.2248 of 2014 on dated
09.10.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the
Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II
(Opposite Party No.2) as to further proceedings of the suit vide SRP
No.2248 of 2014.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(A.C. BEHERA)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
