[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Another on 15 January, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.37075 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sankar Sethi
... 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 the 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 and also correcting the Kisam thereof from
Chhota Jungle to Baje Phasala-3 as it was in the previous
R.o.R in the name of the vendor of the petitioner.
2. The case land is Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata
No.2239 in Mouza-Patharagadia, which corresponds to Sabik
Plot No.582, which corresponds to Plot No.582/1794 under
Khata No.539 (Annexure-1).
The case of the petitioner is that, one Biranchi Narayan
Mishra was allotted for an area of Ac.2.00 decimals from
Sabik Plot No.582 in Mouza-Patharagadia under Chandaka
Police Station in the district of Khurda as per W.L. Case
No.470/1979 and since the date of allotment of the said land
through W.L. Case No.470/1979, the said allottee Biranchi
Narayan Mishra was in possession over the same. The R.o.R
thereof was prepared in the name of Biranchi Narayan Mishra
as per Khata No.539, Plot No.582/1794 for an area of Ac.2.00
decimals (as per Annexure-1).
The said Biranchi Narayan Mishra was paying rent for
the same and he was obtaining the rent receipts thereof.
Thereafter, Biranchi Narayan Mishra sold the case land i.e. for
an area of Ac.0.0550 decimals of land out of Ac.2.00 decimals
from plot No.582/1794 under Khata No.539 to the petitioner
by executing and registering a sale deed vide sale deed
No.2121 dated 19.05.2000 as per Annexure-3 and delivered
possession thereof and since then, the petitioner possessed
the said case land i.e. Ac.0.0550 decimals out of Ac.2.00
decimals of plot No.582/1794.
Thereafter, surprisingly, in a suo moto Lease Revision i.e.
Lease Revision Case No.149/1981, the Addl. District
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled to the lease of the case
land, which was granted in W.L. Case No.470/1979 as per
order dated 23.07.1990, to which, the petitioner challenged,
by filing the writ petition vide OJC No.526/1998.
That writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by
this Court and the Order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the
A.D.M., Bhubaneswar in the suo moto Lease Revision Case
No.149/1981 was quashed as per order dated 02.02.1998
passed in OJC No.526/1998 and the matter was remitted
back for its fresh disposal. Then, after hearing, the A.D.M,
Bhubaneswar confirmed the lease granted in favour of
Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per Order dated 31.03.1999
passed in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
3. During settlement operation, the settlement authorities
recorded the case land illegally under Khata No.2239 Plot
No.2001 Ac.0.055 decimals indicating/reflecting erroneously
to its Kisam as Chhota Jungle. In fact, the case land was/is
under the possession of the petitioner having its Kisam as
Baje Phasala-3, as reflected in the R.o.R vide Khata No.539
(Annexure-1). For which, the recording of the case land by the
settlement authorities in the name of the Government ignoring
the settlement of the same in W.L. Case No.470/1979 in
favour of the vendor of the petitioner and confirmation of the
same on dated 31.03.1999 by the A.D.M. Bhubaneswar on the
basis of the order passed on dated 02.02.1998 in OJC No.526
of 1998 is 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 and also correcting the
Kisam thereof from Chotta Jungle to Bajefasal 3 as it was in
the previous R.o.R vide Annexure-1 on the ground that, the
settlement authorities had no power or jurisdiction to record
the case land in the name of the Government and also to
change the Kisam thereof overriding/ignoring the
confirmation of the settlement of the case land in the name of
the vendor of the petitioner in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
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 Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550 decimals with Kisam
Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 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.470/1979 by the A.D.M,
Bhubaneswar on dated 31.03.1999 ignoring the R.o.R of
the same vide Annexure-1 under Khata No.539 plot
No.582/1794 in the name of the vendor of the petitioner
was lawful?
II. Whether after final publication of the Hal R.o.R
of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550
decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata
No.2239 in the name of the Government, the Writ Court
has power to direct the Tahasildar for recording case
land in the name of the petitioner quashing the recording
of the same in the name of the Government even in
absence of 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 points 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 Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550 decimals
with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 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.470/1979 by the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar on
dated 31.03.1999 ignoring the R.o.R of the same vide Annexure-
1 under Khata No.539 plot No.582/1794 in the name of the
vendor of the petitioner was lawful is concerned,
8. "It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the case land
was allotted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Biranchi
Narayan Mishra in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
The R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of
Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per Khata No.539, plot
No.582/1794 as per Annexure-1.
Thereafter, the said Biranchi Narayan Mishra sold the
case land to the petitioner through R.S.D. dated 19.05.2000 as
per Annexure-3.
The A.D.M, Bhubaneswar cancelled to the order of
settlement of the case land in W.L. Case No.470/1979 as per
Order dated 23.07.1990. The said Order dated 23.07.1990 of
the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar was quashed by this Court as per
order dated 02.02.1998 passed in OJC No.526/1998 and
remitted back the said matter for its fresh disposal by the
A.D.M, Bhubaneswar. Then, the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar
confirmed the lease granted in favour of Biranchi Narayan
Mishra as per order dated 31.03.1999 passed in W.L. Case
No.470/1979 and the said order of confirmation of settlement of
the case land passed on dated 31.03.1999 by the A.D.M,
Bhubaneswar has already been reached in its finality due to
non-challenge to the same either by the State/Government or by
anybody else as yet."
When the case land was settled in the name of the vendor
of the petitioner i.e. Biranchi Narayan Mishra in W.L. Case
No.470/1979 as per Odisha Government Land Settlement Act
and the R.o.R thereof was prepared in the name of the vendor
of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 as per the Order of the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the said order of settlement of
the case land in the name of the vendor of the petitioner i.e.
Biranchi Narayan Mishra has not been cancelled as yet by any
competent authority, 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 confirmation of settlement of the case
land made under the OGLS Act in W.L. Case No.470/1979 in
favour of the vendor of the petitioner.
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.
9. Herein this matter at hand, when indirectly the
settlement authorities have ignored/superseded the order of
confirmation of the settlement of the case land under OGLS
Act in W.L. Case No.470/1979 on the basis of the order
passed by the High Court in OJC No.526/1998, then, at this
juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the preparation of the Hal
R.o.R of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata
No.2239 in the name of the Government is void and non-est in
the eye of law and the said recording of the case land and
publication of the Hal R.o.R under Section 12-B of the OS&S
Act, 1958 in respect of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001
under Hal Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government is
not sustainable under law.
10. So far as the 2nd point i.e. Whether after final publication
of the Hal R.o.R of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 Ac.0.550
decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 in
the name of the Government, the Writ Court has power to direct
the Tahasildar for recording the case land in the name of the
petitioner quashing the recording the same in the name of the
Government even in absence of 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) into 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 through initiation of Mutation Cases.
Here in this matter at hand, when the registered sale
deed vide Annexure-3 is in favour of the petitioner in respect of
the case land and the said Annexure-3 was executed by his
vendor Biranchi Narayan Mishra in favour of the petitioner on
dated 19.05.2000, which was prior to the final publication of
the Hal R.o.R of the case land in the name of the Government
by the settlement authorities and when as per the discussions
and observations made in the forgoing Point No.1, it has
already been held that, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R of the
case land in respect of Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata
No.2239 in the name of the Government by the Settlement
Authorities is void and non-est in the eye of law, 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 and insertion of Clause (g) into the Rule
34 of the OS&S Rules, 1962, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is
authorized 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 through initiation of a Mutation Case on the basis of
the Registered transfer deed vide Annexure-3 of the year 2000
in favour of the petitioner even in absence of approach to the
Revisional Authority under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act,
1958.
11. On the basis of the findings and observations made in
the aforesaid Point No.1 and 2, it can be directed to the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party 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 Chhota Jungle to its
existing status as it was earlier in the previous R.o.R under
Khata No.539 Plot No.582/1794 vide Annexure-1.
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed on contest.
14. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.2) is
directed for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the
name of the Government to the name of the petitioner and to
change the Kisam thereof from Chhota Jungle to Baje Phasala
3 through initiation of a Mutation Case on the basis of
production of the certified copy of this Judgment before the
Opp. Party No.2 and to dispose of the said Mutation Case
finally within one month from the date of its registration.
15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
Signature High
NotCourt of Orissa, Cuttack
Verified
The 15 .01. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Digitally Signed Sr. Stenographer
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 16-Jan-2026 19:26:14
