[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

*** vs State Of Odisha & Another on 15 January, 2026

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                     WP(C) No.37026 of 2025

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



                             ***

Sumitra Sahu

... Petitioner.

-VERSUS-


     State of Odisha & Another
                                     ...       Opposite Parties.



Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner         : Mr. Debasish Samal, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 15.01.2026

J UDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner

praying for directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2)

for preparation of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of the

petitioner correcting the same from the name of the

Government to the name of the petitioner and also correcting

the Kisam thereof from Chhota Jungle to its status as it was

in the previous R.o.R in the name of the petitioner.

2. The case land is plot No.1198/1731/1939 Ac.0.125

decimals under Khata No.325/315 (Annxure-3) in Mouza-

Patharagadia under Chandaka P.S., which corresponds to

Sabik Plot No.1198 under Sabik Khata No.420, which

corresponds to Hal plot No.4712 & 4713 under Hal Khata

No.2239 (Annexure-6).

The case of the petitioner is that, one Bansi @ Bansidhar

Nayak was allotted for an area of Ac.1.500 decimals from

Sabik Plot No.1198 under Sabik Khata No.420 in Mouza-

Patharagadia under Chandaka Police Station in the district of

Khordha as per W.L. Case No.2916/1974 and since the date

of allotment of the said land through W.L. Case

No.2916/1974, the said allottee Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak

was in possession over the same. The R.o.R thereof was

prepared in the name of Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak as per

Khata No.325/99, Plot No.1198/1731 for an area of Ac.1.500

decimals (as per Annexure-1).

The said Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak was paying rent for

the same and he was obtaining the rent receipts for the same.

Thereafter, Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak sold the case land i.e.

for an area of Ac.0.125 decimals of land out of Ac.1.500

decimals from plot No.1198/1731 under Khata No.325/99 to

the petitioner by executing and registering a sale deed vide

sale deed No.4108 dated 07.05.1986 as per Annexure-2 and

delivered possession thereof and since then, the petitioner

had/has been possessing the said case land i.e. Ac.0.125

decimals out of Ac.1.500 decimals of plot No.1198/1731.

Thereafter, the petitioner mutated her purchased land

(which was purchased through R.S.D. No.4108 dated

07.05.1986) through Mutation Case No.965/1990 and as per

Order passed in the Mutation Case No.965/1990, a separate

R.o.R vide Khata No.325/315, Plot No.1198/1731/1939

Ac.0.125 decimals as per Annexure-3 was prepared in the

name of the petitioner indicating/reflecting the Kisam thereof

as Sarada Tini.

Thereafter, surprisingly, in a suo moto Lease Revision

Case No.923/1998, the Addl. District Magistrate,

Bhubaneswar cancelled to the lease of the case land, which

was granted in W.L. Case No.2916 of 1974 as per Order dated

11.08.1998 vide Annexure-4, to which, the petitioner

challenged, by filing the writ petition vide WP(C) No.1461 of

2006.

The said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed

by this Court and the Order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the

A.D.M., Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.923/1998

was quashed as per Order dated 13.02.2006 (Annexure-5)

passed in WP(C) No.1461 of 2006.

3. During settlement operation, the settlement authorities

recorded the case land illegally and erroneously in the name of

the Government under Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata as per

Annexure-6 indicating the Kisam thereof erroneously as

"Chotta Jungle". In fact, the case land was/is under the

possession of the petitioner having its Kisam as Sarada Tini,

as reflected in the R.o.R vide Annexure-3 as Sarada Tini. For

which, the recording of the case land by the settlement

authorities in the name of the Government changing its Kisam

ignoring the settlement of the same in W.L. Case

No.2916/1974 in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and

the confirmation of the same by the High Court in WP(C)

No.1461 of 2006 as per Annexure-5 and superseding the

order passed by the High Court on dated 13.02.2006 in WP(C)

No.1461 of 2006 are baseless.

For which, without getting any way, the petitioner filed

this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India praying for directing the Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) for preparation of the R.o.R of the

case land in the name of the petitioner correcting the same

from the name of the Government as well as correcting the

Kisam thereof from Chotta Jungle to Sarada Tini on the

ground that, the settlement authorities had no power or

jurisdiction to record the case land in the name of the

Government as well as to change the Kisam thereof indicated

in the previous R.o.R vide Annexure-3.

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

5. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned

counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is

that,

I. Whether the preparation of the R.o.R of the case land

vide Annexure-6 in the name of the Government by the

Settlement Authorities in spite of the confirmation of the

order of settlement of the case land passed in W.L. Case

No.2916/1974 ignoring the R.o.R of the same vide

Khata No.325/315 plot No.1198/1731/1939 (Annexure-

3) which was in the name of the petitioner is lawful?

II. Whether after final publication of the Hal R.o.R

vide Annexure-6 in the name of the Government, the

Writ Court has power or authority to direct the

Tahasildar for recording of the case land in the name of

the petitioner quashing the recording of the same in the

name of the Government even in absence of any

approach of the petitioner to the Revisional Authority

under Section 15 (b) of the O.S & S. Act, 1958?

6. In order to have the just decision of this Writ Petition, the

above two formulated questions fixed for determination are

required to be discussed and analyzed one after another

serially and chronologically hereunder:

7. So far as the first point i.e. Whether the preparation of the

R.o.R of the case land vide Annexure-6 in the name of the

Government by the Settlement Authorities in spite of the

confirmation of the order of settlement of the case land passed

in W.L. Case No.2916/1974 ignoring the R.o.R of the same vide

Khata No.325/315 plot No.1198/1731/1939 (Annexure-3)

which was in the name of the petitioner was lawful is

concerned,

It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the case

land was allotted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner i.e.

Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak in W.L. Case No.2916 of 1974.

The R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of

Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak as per Khata No.325/99 plot

No.1198/1731 (Annexure-1).

Thereafter, the said Bansi @ Bansidhar Nayak sold the

case land to the petitioner through R.S.D. dated 07.05.1986 as

per Annexure-2.

After purchasing the case land through Annexure-2, the

petitioner mutated the case land to her name as per Mutation

Case No.965/1990 and as per the order passed in the

Mutation Case No.965/1990, separate R.o.R vide Khata

No.325/315 as per Annexure-3 was prepared in the name of

the petitioner. The petitioner was paying the rent of the same

in her name through rent receipts as per Annexure-3 series.

8. Thereafter, the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar has cancelled to the

order of settlement of land in W.L. Case No.2916/1974 as per

order dated 11.08.1998 passed in Lease Revision Case

No.923/1998. The said order dated 11.08.1998 of the A.D.M,

Bhubaneswar was quashed by this Court as per Order dated

13.02.2006 passed in WP(C) No.1461/2006 vide Annexure-5.

That order of confirmation of the lease in W.L. Case

No.2916/1974 by the High Court as per Order dated

13.02.2006 in WP(C) No.1461 of 2006 has already been

reached in its finality due to non-challenge to the same by the

State/Government.

9. When the case land was settled in W.L. Case

No.2916/1974 as per Odisha Government Land Settlement Act

and the R.o.R thereof was prepared in the name of the

petitioner as per Annexure-3 as per the Order of the

Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar passed in Mutation Case No.965 of

1990, then, at this juncture, the settlement authorities had no

power or jurisdiction under law for recording the case land in

the name of the Government superseding the order of

settlement made under the OGLS Act in W.L. Case

No.2916/1974 and confirmation of the said settlement passed

by the High Court on dated 13.02.2006 in WP(C) No.1461 of

2006.

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 & Shri Padma Bhoi Vs. State of Orissa reported in JBR (XV) Part IV Page 50 that, unless the lease is cancelled, the land should be recorded in the name of the petitioner i.e. in whose name the land was allotted.

(II) In a case between Mrs. Sneha Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.18936 of 2013 on dated 20.08.2013 (DB) that, the Settlement Authorities has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the revisional authority in a proceeding under the OGLS Act regarding lease of Government land.

(III) In the cases between Nilendri Mohanty Vs. State decided in WP(C) No.8402 of 2014 on dated 04.07.2014 (DB), Kamala Basini Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa decided in WP(C) No.8237 of 2014 on dated 04.07.2014 (DB), Kapaleswar Firms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.11165 of 2014 on dated 08.07.2014 (DB) and Tridev Kodamasingh Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.4596 of 2014 on dated 27.10.2014 (DB) that, the leases granted either under the OGLS Act or under any other appropriate law, unless and until the said leases are set aside or declared invalid by the competent authority under the appropriate statute, the leases cannot be said to be invalid.

Unless and until a lease is either set aside or leasehold lands are resumed by the order of the competent authority, the Settlement Authorities are bound by the lease orders and have no jurisdiction to question the validity of the lease concerned.

(IV) In a case between Padmanav Prusty Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.12776 of 2014 on dated 06.04.2018 (DB) that, it was none of the business of the Assistant Settlement Officer to go into the question of correctness of lease and direct to change the draft record.

Because, the authority under the OGLS Act, lease principle or Government Grants Act under which there are hierarchy of authorities to take cognizance of any irregularity and illegality and the said authority can pass the order of cancellation under the concerned statute.

The Settlement Officer is not authorized to encroach upon the authority as prescribed under other revenue laws to behave like appellate authority to cancel the lease. For which, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer is without jurisdiction and wholly erroneous.

(V) In a case between Narottam Rath Vs. State of Odisha and Another decided in WP(C) No.1608 of 2014 on dated 02.01.2023 (DB) that, the ASOs exercised 'suo motu powers' to override the orders of the ADM under the OGLS Act in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioners and refused to record their names in the ROR despite there being no objections to the draft publication of the ROR.

ASO cannot declare any order under OLGS Act as an illegal.

Such action of the ASO is illegal and without jurisdiction. Because, the ASO has no jurisdiction to pass any order touching the OGLS Act. So, his order for recording the case land in the name of the Government is held as without jurisdiction, for which, the said order of ASO is held as void and non-est in the eye of law.

(VI) In a case between Ranjit Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided in WP(C) No.5876 of 2014 on

dated 22.09.2025 that, there is no provision under the OS&S Act, 1958 empowering the Authorities created under OS&S Act, 1958 to cancel a lease granted under the OGLS Act.

So, by ignoring the order passed by the authorities under the OLGS Act, the ASO acted without jurisidiction in directing to record the case land in favour of the State. For which, the order of the settlement authorities for recording of the case land in the name of the State is void. Therefore, relegating the Petitioner to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958 will serve no purpose and thereby the Petitioner will be further harassed in facing unnecessary litigations.

Since, the settlement proceeding has already been over and the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is the custodian of the revenue records together with the fact that, the concerned Tahasildar has the power under Rule 34 of Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 to correct the entries in the ROR pursuant to the direction of a Court, for which, it is directed that, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall issue ROR of the case land in favour of the Petitioner, if moved by the Petitioner, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

(VII) In a case between Lily Nanda Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2018(I)OLR 559 that, when the Settlement Authorities conveniently avoided the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act ignoring the same, which was not permissible under law, and when the impugned orders have, in effect, resulted in cancelling the lease granted in favour of the beneficiary, which was not within the domain

of the settlement authorities, then, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and the same are void, illegal and non- est in the eye of law.

(VIII) In a case between Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.8774 of 2019 on dated 18.06.2021 that, when, Settlement Authorities has passed the orders without recognizing the settlement of the land under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act and when the authorities under the OS&S Act, 1958 cannot sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act, then, it is held that, the Settlement Authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and as such, the final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 pursuant to the void orders is not sustainable under law.

10. Herein this matter at hand, when indirectly the

settlement authorities have ignored the order of allotment of

the case land under OGLS Act and the confirmation of the

same by the High Court in WP(C) No.1461 of 2006 in fvaour of

the vendor of the petitioner, then, at this juncture, in view of

the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid

decisions, the preparation of the R.o.R of the case land vide

Annexure-6 in the name of the Government under Khata

No.2239 in respect of the case land is void and non-est under

law and the said R.o.R vide Annexure-6 prepared under

Section 12-B of the OS&S Act, 1958 vide Annexure-6 in the

name of the Government in respect of the case land is not

sustainable under law.

11. So far as the 2nd point i.e. Whether after final

publication of the Hal R.o.R vide Annexure-6 in the name of the

Government, the Writ Court has power or authority to direct the

Tahasildar for recording of the case land in the name of the

petitioner quashing the recording of the same in the name of the

Government even in absence of any approach of the petitioner to

the Revisional Authority under Section 15 (b) of the O.S & S. Act,

1958 is concerned:

As per the amendment of the Rule 34 of the OS&S Rules,

1962 and due to insertion of Clause (g) in the said rule 34 of

the OS&S Rules, 1962 on the basis of the Notification No.4773

dated 12.11.2025 of the R & DM Department of the

Government of Odisha, all the Tahasildars of the entire State

are empowered/authorized under law for correction of the

finally published R.o.R of the case land on the basis of the

registered transfer deed executed even prior to the publication

of the final R.o.R by way of initiation of a Mutation Case.

Here in this matter at hand, when the registered sale

deed No.4108 dated 07.05.1986 vide Annexure-2 is in favour

of the petitioner in respect of the case land and the said

Annexure-2 was executed by her vendor Bansi @ Bansidhar

Nayak in favour of the petitioner on dated 07.05.1986 prior to

the final publication of the final R.o.R of the case land by the

settlement authorities vide Annexure-6 and when as per the

discussions and observations made above in the forgoing Point

No.1, it has already been held that, the preparation of the final

R.o.R of the case land in respect of Hal Plot No.4712 & 4713

under Hal Khata No.2239 is void and illegal, then, at this

juncture, in view of the findings and observations made in the

forgoing point No.1 as well as aforesaid notification No.4773

dated 12.11.2025 of the R & DM Department of the

Government of Odisha due to insertion of Clause (g) into the

Rule 34 of the OS&S Rules, 1962, the Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar is empowered under law for correction of the

R.o.R of the case land from the name of the Government to the

name of the petitioner initiating a Mutation Case on the basis

of the Registered sale deed No.4108 dated 07.05.1986 vide

Annexure-2 instead of approaching the Revisional Authority

under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958.