[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manorama Swain & Others vs Commissioner Land Reforms-Cum on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.15682 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India)
Manorama Swain & others ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Commissioner Land Reforms-cum-
Commissioner Consolidation &
Settlement Odisha & others ....... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
___________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. G.N.Rout, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
Mr. S. Ray, Advocate
(For Opp. Party nos. 4,6,7,8, and 9)
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
7 April, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge
the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner,
Land Reforms-cum-Commissioner, Consolidation and
Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 138 of
2021 as well as the order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Misc.
Case No. 54 of 2022, whereby the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur
has been directed to correct the ROR on the basis of the Gift
Deed dated 10.06.1967 and Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that land
measuring Ac.0.51 dec. under Sabik Khata No. 20,
comprising Sabik Plot Nos. 353, 356 and 354 of village
Pateligaon was recorded in the names of the ancestors of the
parties under the Sabik ROR published in 1930. The land
was ancestral and jointly held by two branches of the family,
each having half share. During the lifetime of the recorded
tenants, a portion of the land was transferred by Sale Deed
dated 21.07.1952 in favour of Madan Swain and thereafter,
Kahnei Swain executed a Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 in
favour of Madan Swain and Amarendra Swain in respect of
his share. Subsequently, Ac.0.13 dec. of land was acquired
for canal expansion prior to Hal Settlement, leaving Ac. 0.38
decs. Said land was recorded jointly in the names of Madan
Swain and Amarendra Swain in the Hal Settlement ROR
(1983) and thereafter in the Consolidation ROR published on
03.02.1993, without specification of shares.
After 28 years, Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 9 filed a
revision under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act claiming
separate recording of land on the basis of the aforesaid Sale
Deed and Gift Deed. The Commissioner, Consolidation
allowed the revision, pursuant to which, separate RORs have
been issued recording Ac.0.25 dec. in favour of the opposite
parties and Ac.0.13 dec. in favour of the petitioners. Said
order of the Commissioner, along with the order rejecting the
recall application is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private
opposite parties contending that the suit land had already
been mutually partitioned between the parties long prior to
the consolidation operation, though the ROR was recorded
jointly. It is stated by them that Madan Swain was entitled to
Ac.0.25 dec. and Amar Swain to Ac.0.13 dec., and the
consolidation entry showing joint recording does not reflect
the actual state of affairs. The Commissioner, after due
consideration of the Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 and Gift
Deed dated 10.06.1967 as well as the materials on record,
has rightly allowed the revision and directed correction of the
ROR. It is also stated that, pursuant to the impugned order,
the Tahasildar, after conducting field enquiry and verification
of records has issued separate RORs in favour of the
respective parties.
4. Heard Mr. G.N.Rout, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the Opposite
party nos. 4,6,7,8, and 9 and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State.
5. Mr. Rout would argue that the land in question was
admittedly recorded jointly in the Hal Settlement ROR as well
as in the Consolidation ROR without specification of shares,
which carries a presumption of joint possession and equal
entitlement. He further submits that the Commissioner erred
in directing correction of the ROR solely on the basis of pre-
settlement Sale Deed and Gift Deed, without taking into
consideration the subsequent reduction of land due to
acquisition of Ac.0.13 dec. for canal expansion. He also
argues that the revisional authority in effect has partitioned
the joint holding by allotting specific extents of land in favour
of the parties without consent of the co-sharers, which is
beyond his jurisdiction under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL
Act. He also submits that the revision having been filed after
an inordinate delay of about 28 years from the publication of
the Consolidation ROR ought not to have been entertained.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ray would argue that the impugned
orders have been passed upon due consideration of the Sale
Deed dated 21.07.1952, Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 and
other materials on record. He submits that the joint entry in
the ROR does not reflect the actual state of affairs as the land
had already been mutually partitioned between the parties,
and the respective shares have rightly been recognized by the
Commissioner. He also argues that the Tahasildar, pursuant
to the impugned order, has effected correction of the ROR
after due field enquiry and verification.
7. Mr. S.N. Patnaik would argue that the correction of
the ROR has been directed in consonance with recorded
transactions of gift deed and sale deed. He further submits
that the dispute raised by the petitioners relating to partition
of joint holding, consent of co-sharers and allotment of shares
involves disputed questions of title and possession and can
only be adjudicated by the competent civil Court.
8. From the arguments advanced, it is seen that the
parties are litigating over Ac.0. 01 dec. of land. Both parties
have based their claims on the genealogy of the family and
the subsequent devolution of interest, including transfers by
way of Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 and Gift Deed dated
10.06.1967 of portions of the property by different persons to
different members of the same family.
9. In the revision filed under Section 37(1) of the OCH
and PFL Act, 1972, the Commissioner took note of the rival
contentions as well as the recording of the land in the name
of different members of the same family. After full-length of
hearing, the Commissioner allowed the revision by directing
the concerned Tahasildar to correct the ROR as per gift deed
and registered sale deed. Be it noted that the gift deed or the
sale deed in question have never been challenged by the
present petitioners.
10. The order passed in the revision under Section 37
was also not challenged as such but a Misc. Case was filed
for modification of the order. Since the original order of the
Commissioner is based on the gift deed and sale deed
executed long back, the Commissioner rightly allowed the
revision relating to the said deeds.
11. The petitioners claim that the partition of joint
holding without consent of co-sharers is without jurisdiction
of the consolidation authority. Further, the petitioners appear
to have based their claim on division of the original land
between different members of the two branches as also
subsequent transfers of portions thereof at different points of
time. These are purely factual issues that cannot be gone into
by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. Any challenge to the
allotment of shares and the consequent claim of parity can
only be adjudicated by the civil Court on the basis of
evidence. This Court is therefore, of the view that the
Commissioner committed no illegality in allowing the revision
and in rejecting the Misc. Case filed by the petitioners for
modification. The petitioners may work out their remedy, if
any, under law in the competent civil Court but not in the
present forum.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds
no merit in the writ application, which is dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 7th April, 2026/ Deepak
