Orissa High Court
Ankit Aggarwal & Others vs Collector on 24 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.36549 of 2023
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
***
Ankit Aggarwal & others .......... Petitioners
-VERSUS-
Collector, Sundargarh & Others --------- Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr.P.K.Rath, Sr.Adv.
Mr.S.Rath, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.U.K.Samal, Adv.
(for O.P. Nos.3 to 9)
Mr.G.Mohanty, S.C.
(for O.P. Nos.1 and 2)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the
Petitioners praying for quashing the impugned orders dated
09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1)
respectively passed in Settlement Revision Petition Case
No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1).
2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the case land originally
belonged to Raj Sarkar Sri Bira Mitra Pratap Sekhar Deo. The
same was under Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423.
In its next settlement of the year 1976, the case land was
recorded in the name of Madhu Routia and Khudan Routia.
After the death of Madhu Routia, his branch was
represented through Mahadev Routia and others.
The Branch of Khudan Routia @ Singh was represented
through Abhimanyu Singh and others.
Mahadev Routia, Prabhu Routia, Ghuran Routia and
Khudan Routia stated to have executed a registered sale deed
on dated 17.09.1966 in respect of the properties covered under
Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423, Ac.2.38 decimals vide
Annexure-3 in favour of Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat.
The purchasers of the case land i.e. Chaitanya Pasayat
and Punu Pasayat failed to produce their above sale deed
dated 17.09.1966 before the Settlement Authorities during
settlement operation of the year 1976 for recording of the case
land in their names. For which, in the settlement of the year
1976, the case land was not recorded in their names.
Thereafter, Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat filed
Revision Revision No.250 of 2006 through one Gouranga
Pasayat challenging the non-recording of the case land in their
names. As the said Gouranga Pasayat had already expired
prior to the filing of the said Revision No.250 of 2006, for
which, that Revision No.250 of 2006 was dismissed for default
on dated 01.03.2008. Then, the aforesaid purchasers of the
case land remained silent.
In the year 2022, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants
of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted to sell the case land.
As, by that time, Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of
2022 on being filed by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in respect of the
case land was pending before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P.
No.1), for which, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the
Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted a clarification from the Sub-
Registrar, Panposh, whether, sale deed in respect of the case
land can be executed by them or not during the pendency of
Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022. For which,
The Sub-Registrar, Panposh sought for a clarification about
the same from the District Registrar, Registrar as per letter
No.501 dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure-6), to which, The District
Registrar, Sundargarh answered as per letter No.1556 dated
29.12.2022 (Annexure-7) that, there is no bar for the execution
of sale deed in respect of the case land by the legal heirs of the
recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R.. On the basis of such
clarification of the District Registrar, Sundargarh, the legal
heirs of the Hal recorded tenants of the case land executed
sale deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023
transferring the case land in favour of the Petitioners and
delivered possession thereof. The Petitioners being the
purchasers of the case land through the aforesaid two sale
deeds dated 09.02.2023 applied before the Tahasildar,
Lathikata (O.P. No.2) for mutation of the case land to their
names by filing Mutation Case Nos.683 and 684 of 2023, but,
the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) dropped their above both
the Mutation Cases vide Mutation Cases Nos.683 and 684 of
2023 as per order dated 02.05.2023 on the ground of
pendency of the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 in
respect of the said land before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P.
No.1) filed by O.P. Nos.3 to 9.
When, the aforesaid Mutation Cases of the Petitioners
were dropped by the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2), then,
the Petitioners prepared for their intervention and
impleadment in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022
before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1), but, prior to the
approach of the Petitioners to the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P.
No.1), the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) disposed of that
Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 filed by the O.P.
Nos.3 to 9 on dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) giving
directions to the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) for
correction of the records of the case land to the name of the
Petitioners of the said Settlement Revision No.530 of 2022
(O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition).
3. After knowing about the same, the Petitioners filed
W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2023 before the High Court of Orissa
against the Petitioners in Revision Petition No.530 of 2022
(O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition) praying for quashing the
said final order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed by the
Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision
Petition No.530 of 2022 in favour of the Petitioners of that
Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in
this writ petition).
After hearing from both the sides, that W.P.(C) No.22588
of 2023 was disposed of by this Court as per its final order
dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure-14) giving liberty to the
Petitioners to file an application before the Collector,
Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) praying for recalling the final order
dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed by the Collector,
Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530
of 2022 clarifying that,
in the event, the Petitioners file an application before
the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) to recall the final
order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Revision Petition
No.530 of 2022 within a period of two weeks from the
date of said order along with the certified copy of that
judgment, the same shall be considered by the Collector,
Sundargarh in accordance with law providing
opportunity of hearing to the Parties likely to be affected
and till the disposal of such petition, the order dated
09.06.2023 passed in that Revision Petition No.530 of
2022 shall be kept in abeyance".
On the basis of the aforesaid directions given by this
Court in the order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure-14) passed in
W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2023, the Petitioners approached
Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in due time by filing an
application on dated 04.09.2023 praying for recalling the final
order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed in settlement
Revision Petition No.530 of 2022.
The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) heard such petition
dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure-15) of the Petitioners from both
the sides and as per its order dated 15.09.2023 (Annnexure-1),
the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) rejected to the Petition
dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioners assigning the cryptic
reasons.
4. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the
petition dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioner passed on dated
15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P.
No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the
Petitioners challenged the same filing this writ petition praying
for quashing the same on the ground that, the Petitioners were
the necessary parties in that Settlement Revision Petition
No.530 of 2022 being the purchasers of the case land prior to
the passing of the order dated 09.06.2023 in that Settlement
Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022. For which, they
(Petitioners) should have been given opportunity of being heard
in that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022.
Therefore, the decision rendered by the Collector,
Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in that Settlement Revision Petition
No.530 of 2022 on dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) without
impleading them as Parties is bad and illegal, the same is
liable to be quashed (set aside).
5. I have already heard from the learned Sr. counsel for the
Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 and the
learned Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2.
6. In order to assail the impugned orders vide Annexures 13
and 1, the learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the
following decisions:-
(i) Ghanashyam Nial and others Vrs. Additional
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation,
Sambalpur and others & Anand Agarwal @
Singhania Vrs. State of Odisha and others decided
in W.P.(C) No.10241 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.21941 of
2023.
(ii) Premalata Patnaik Vrs. Joint Commissioner,
Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and others
decided in W.A. No.378 of 2023.
(iii) Durga Charan Roul and others Vrs.
Bhagirathi Roul and others reported in 2017 SCC
Online Ori 896
(iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs and
others Vrs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 513
(v) N.Jayaram Reddy and another Vrs. Revenue
Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer,
Kurnool reported in (1979) 3 SCC 578
(vi) Ashok Transport Agency Vrs. Awadhesh Kumar
and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 567
On the contrary, in support of the impugned orders vide
Annexures 13 and 1, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to
9 relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) H.Anjanappa and others Vrs. A.Prabhakar
and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 183.
(ii) Kasi Prasad Modi Vrs. Chaitnya Dev &
Radhakanta Deb Baba Matha, Puri decided in W.P.(C)
No.3229 of 2016.
(iii) Krushna Chandra Mahakul Vrs. State of
Orissa and others reported in 2003 SCC Online Orissa
234.
(iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
another Vrs. Katiji and others reporded in (1987) 2
SCC 107.
(v) Karuppaswamy and others Vrs.
C.Ramamurthy reported in (1993) 4 SCC 41
7. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides, on the basis of the orders dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively
passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the
crux of this writ petition is that,
"whether the Petitioners in this writ petition
were/are entitled under law to be heard in
Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 for
the final disposal of the same as per law on
merit"?
8. It is the undisputed case of the Parties, that, the O.P.
Nos.3 to 9 (Petitioners in Settlement Revision Petition No.530
of 2022) had filed Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 under
Section 15(b) of the OS & S Act, 1958 praying for correction of
the R.o.R of the case land of last settlement of the year 1976
from the names of the predecessors of the vendors of the
Petitioners to their names on the basis of sale deed dated
17.09.1966 in their favour.
9. The Petitioners in this writ petition are claiming for
correction of the R.o.R. of the case land to their names on the
basis of the sale deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated
09.02.2023 in their favour in respect of the case land and as
purchasers from the legal heirs of the recorded tenant of the
Hal R.o.R. published in the year 1976.
As such, prior to the impugned order dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure-13) passed by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1)
in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the said deed
Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023 in
respect of the case land were executed by the legal heirs of the
recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land in favour of
the Petitioners of this writ petition.
The Petitioners have not been given any opportunity of
being heard in the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022
for its disposal on merit impleading them (Petitioners) as
parties in the said Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of
2022.
The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) has disposed of the
petition dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioners on dated
15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) assigning the reasons that,
"the Prayer for correction of R.o.R. issued by
the Settlement Authority cannot be dismissed only for
non-filing of petition within the limitation period,
where there are material, evidences available in
support of the claim of the Petitioner. Hence, there is
no error in the condonation of delay and admission of
the revision, also there is no material irregularity in
the order passed on 9th June, 2023 and the decision
taken in the revision petition will hold good".
10. Under the above factual backgrounds, now it will be seen,
whether, as per law, the Petitioners were entitled to be heard
in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 before the O.P.
No.1 for its final decision on merit.
On this aspect, it is felt proper to refer the following
decisions:-
(i) In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath and another
Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement,
Orissa and others reported in 1989 (2) OLR 135 in that,
In a revision for correction of R.o.Rs--Persons, whose
interests are likely to be affected not made parties.-Revision
allowed--Petitioners, who claim title to the disputed land
on the strength of lease and gift having not been impleaded
praying for hearing the revision case afresh and recalling
the revisional order--Rejection of prayer--Propriety of--
Held, fit case to re-open the matter to comply with the
requirements of principle of natural justice--Impugned
order quashed--Matter remanded for disposal on merit.
(ii) In a case between Nilakamai Das & Othrs Vrs.
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa,
Cuttack and others reported in JBR Vol-XV (1978) Part
IV 55 D.B. that,
as per law, "Parties concerned" would not necessarily
mean, those who had been contesting the pariticulars in
the R.o.Rs. before the Settlement Authorities. Any person,
who would be affected by the direction of the Commissioner
would be entitled to a hearing.
(iii) In a case between Lucy Narona Vrs. Raghunath Jew
Bije reported in (1992) 74 CLT 463 in Para No.5 that,
the transferee by the date of filing of the suit, they are
the necessary parties in the suit, any decision of the point
is likely to affect their interest. The suit will not be
maintainable in their absence.
(iv) In a case between Jaibunnisha Bibi Vrs.
Sk.Jalaluddin and others reported in 2008 (Supp.1)
OLR 712 (Para Nos.10 and 11) that,
it is always open for an Appellate Court to remand a
matter, if it comes to a conclusion that, there has been
non-joinder of necessary party. Court may at any stage
direct the addition of a party, when the Court is of the view
that, the said party's presence is necessary to enable the
Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and
settle all the questions included in the suit.
11. Here in this matter at hand, when, the Petitioners are the
purchasers of the case land from the legal heirs of the Hal
recorded tenants prior to the final order dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure-13) passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of
2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) and when the
said Hal R.o.R. of the case land published in the year 1976 had
remained unchallenged by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ
petition for long period since 1976 to 2022 and when the
Petitioners are claiming their interest in the case land, as the
purchasers of the same from the legal heirs of the Hal recorded
tenants and when the impugned orders dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively
passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022
naturally have an affect on the Petitioners claim in the case
land, as they (Petitioners) are claiming the case land as the
purchasers of the same, then at this juncture, by applying the
principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, it is held that, it is a fit case for reopening the
matter vide Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 in
order to comply the requirements of the principles of natural
justice i.e. in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the
Petitioners of this writ petition in the said Settlement Revision
Petition No.530 of 2022 (which was decided in their absence)
for no other reason, but only, in order to avoid the multiplicity
of litigations between the parties in respect of the case land
without giving any right to the Petitioners in this writ petition
to question the revision for its delay in filing by the Petitioners
thereof on the point of limitation, as it is the primary function
of all Courts including the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) to
adjudicate disputes between the Parties on merit and to
advance substantial justice instead of giving much stress on
technicality like limitation.
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioners. The same is to be allowed.
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is
allowed on contest.
14. The impugned orders dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13)
and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively passed in Settlement
Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh
(O.P. No.1) are quashed (set aside).
15. The matter vide Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of
2022 is remitted back to the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1)
to decide the same afresh impleading the Petitioners of this
writ petition as the O.Ps in the said Settlement Revision
Petition No.530 of 2022 and to decide the same afresh after
giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties in this writ
petition as per law on merit concerning the entitlement of the
parties for recording or non-recording of their names in the
R.o.R. of the case land within the parameters of the OSS Act,
1958 and the OSS Rules, 1962 without allowing the Petitioners
of this writ petition to raise a technical ground questioning the
maintainability of the Settlement revision petition No.530 of
2022 filed by the Petitioners thereof (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this
writ petition) on the ground of limitation, but, to argue the
same on merit.
The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) is directed to
dispose of the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022
independently according to law without being influenced in any
manner by this judgment as expeditiously as possible in full
compliance with the Principles of natural justice.
16. The Parties in this writ petition are directed to appear
before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement
Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 on dated 16.10.2025 for the
purpose of receiving the directions of the Collector, Sundargarh
(O.P. No.1) as to further proceedings of the Settlement Revision
Petition No.530 of 2022 according to the observations made in
this judgment.
17. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
24th Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo//
Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
