Orissa High Court

Bhismadev Sahu @ Vismadev Sahu & Another vs State Of Orissa & Others on 26 September, 2025

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                   WP(C) No.17072 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
                            India.

                             ***

Bhismadev Sahu @ Vismadev Sahu & Another ... Petitioners.

-VERSUS-


  State of Orissa & Others
                                   ...          Opposite Parties.



Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners        : Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr.P.K. Nayak, Adv.

(For the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4)

Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel (For the Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2).

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.09.2025

J UDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners

praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated

03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 by

the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement,

Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.2).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which

prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the case

land originally belonged to one Anantaram Sahu (father of the

petitioners). The father of the petitioners i.e. Anantaram Sahu

sold the case land to the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4

i.e. Chittaranjan Panda through Registered Sale Deed No.2012

dated 08.10.1985 and delivered possession thereof. But, the

father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Chittaranjan Panda

died leaving behind the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 as his

successors. During consolidation operation, the R.o.R of the

case land was prepared in favour of the petitioners. For which,

the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 filed a revision vide R.C. No.124 of

2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 for correction of R.o.R of the

case land to their names. The said Revision Case No.124 of

2006 was disposed of finally remanding the matter to the

Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Sambalpur for its

hearing afresh.

3. After hearing, the Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub-

Collector, Sambalpur allowed the case of the Opp. Party Nos.3

& 4 and directed Tahasildar, Sambalpur for correction of the

R.o.R of the case land from the name of the petitioners

(petitioners in this writ petition) to the name of the Opp. Party

Nos.3 & 4. Accordingly, the R.o.R of the case land was

prepared in the name of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 vide Khata

No.228/654 bearing Chaka No.85/882.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP(C) No.1902 of 2024

before this Court challenging the order passed in R.C. No.124

of 2006.

After hearing from both the sides, this Court disposed of

that WP(C) No.1902 of 2024 on dated 03.12.2024 giving

liberty to the petitioners to approach the revisional authority

within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order for

hearing of the revision case No.124 of 2006 again filed by the

Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition.

4. During the course of hearing of the Revision Case No.124

of 2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 afresh, the petitioners

raised the contentions that, the sale deed of the Opp. Party

Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land is void according to

Section 34 & 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 as the father of

the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 purchased the part Chaka

fragmenting the Chaka.

5. After hearing from both the sides, the Revisional Court

i.e. Opp. Party No.2 finally disposed of that Revision Case

No.124 of 2006 on dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) afresh and

held that,

"the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 have the right, title and interest in the case land, because, their father i.e. Chitta Ranjan Panda had lawfully purchased the same from Anantaram Sahu through R.S.D. No.2012 dated 08.10.1985, and they (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4) are in possession over the same, for which, it would be iniquitous to deny and disallow

the rightful claim of the petitioners of the Revision Case No.124 of 2006 i.e. Deepak Kumar Panda and Alok Kumar Panda (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition), in view of the introduction of Section 36-A into the statute book and omission of chapter V including Section 34 and 35 from the said Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972, therefore, the Sale Deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land cannot be held as void and invalid under law."

6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated

03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 in

favour of the petitioners thereof i.e. Deepak Kumar Panda and

Alok Kumar Panda (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in this writ petition),

the petitioners in this writ petition challenged the same by

filing this writ petition praying for quashing the said

impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in

R.C. No.124 of 2006 by the Opp. Party No.2.

7. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both

the sides.

8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the

learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, as by the

time of purchase of the case land through R.S.D. No.2012

dated 08.10.1985 creating fragmentation of the Chaka land,

Sections 34 & 35 were not deleted/omitted from the Statute

Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972, for which, the subsequent

omissions of the Chapter V from the OCH & PFL Act, 1972

including Section 34 & 35 from the Statute Book of OCH &

PFL Act, 1972 cannot make the sale deed No.2012 dated

08.10.1985 in respect of the case land valid. Because at the

time of registration of the sale deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985

in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4, the said

deed was void and non-est in the eye of law in view of the

provisions of Section 35 of the OCH & PFL Act. Because, the

said sale deed in respect of the case land was executed

creating fragmentation of the Chaka.

The newly introduced/incorporated Section into the

Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972 is Section 36-A.

As per Section 36-A of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972,

"Any transfer or partition of agricultural land in a locality creating fragmentation made under the Principal Act before the commencement of the Odisha Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land (Amendment) Act, 2023, shall be treated as valid."

9. The time, from which date, Section 36-A of the OCH &

PFL Act, 1972 shall be effective has been clarified by this

Court in a case between Benudhar Swain VS. Bahudi Jena

reported in 2024 (2) OLR Page 261 wherein it has been held

that,

"it is well neigh, the settled position of law that the change in law after the disposal of the original proceedings can be well taken note of in the pending proceeding arising out of the original proceedings".

10. When the change of law has been taken place during the

pendency of the original proceeding vide R.C. No.124 of 2006

through omission of Sections 33, 34 & 35 from the Statute

Book of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972, then, as per law, the newly

introduced Section i.e. Section 36-A shall govern the field for

adjudication of this writ petition arising out of original

proceeding vide R.C. No.124 of 2006.

So, by applying the propositions of law clarified above in

the ratio of the decision referred to supra and taking the

amended Act of 2023 w.e.f. 29.12.2023 concerning the

omission of Chapter V including Section 33,34 & 35 of the

OCH & PFL Act, 1972 and introduction of Section 36-A in the