Pradipta Kishore Dash vs Additional Commissioner
2026 Latest Caselaw 2102 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pradipta Kishore Dash vs Additional Commissioner on 9 March, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

               W.P.(C). No. 22349 of 2025


(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)

Pradipta Kishore Dash                    ......      Petitioner

                              -Versus-

Additional Commissioner, BBSR & Ors.... Opposite Parties
_______________________________________________________

  For Petitioner    : Mr. P.K.Mohanty, Sr.Advocate,
                      Mr. P.Mohanty, Advocate
   For Opp. Party : Ms. J. Sahoo,
                      ASC for State
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
     JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                         JUDGMENT

9th March, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

following prayer:

It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp.Parties, to show cause as to why the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the O.P. No. 3

in Objection Case No. 5654 of 2013 vide VOS in Objection Case No. 5625 of 2013 under Annexure-11 & 11-A and the order dt. 17.12.2024 passed in RP Case No. 1694/2014 of the O.P. No.1 as under

Annexure-13 respectively, thereby apparently confirming the recording the scheduled land in Govt. Khata vide Annexure-14 shall not be quashed with further direction to record the scheduled land in the name of the petitioner, in Sthitiban Status giving due regards to Govt. Circular vide Annexure-15, within a particular time;

And If the Opp.Parties fails to show cause and/or show insufficient and/or false cause, make the said rule Nisi absolute, And/Or, pass any other order as deemed proper, And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one

Nanda Nayak was granted lease of a Government land in

W.L. Case No. 2676 of 1973. He sold the land to one

Sakuntala Dash after obtaining permission of the

appropriate authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act. One

of the legal heirs of said Sakuntala Dash sold the land to

the petitioner. A proceeding was initiated against Nanda

Nayak for resumption of the lease by the ADM,

Bhubaneswar under Section 7 (A) (3) of the OGLS Act. By

order dated 23.04.1987, the ADM, after noting the facts,

remitted the matter to the Tahasildar with the following

observation:

"It has not been ascertained on enquiry if the O.P. is landless and if he has no other profitable means or livelihood in order to be eligible for settlement of land under the Act and Rules in force. However, it appears that the leassee is a S.T. person of the concerned village and also does not appear to be a man of means. In the circumstances he may be an eligible person. But in view of the material irregularities enumerated above it is not possible to confirm the lease. As such the case is remitted back to the Tahasildar for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. The case is remanded."

3. Pursuant to such order, the Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar made necessary inquiry and found that the

original lessee was eligible for grant of lease. By order dated

21.03.1995, the following was, inter alia, was observed:

xxx xxx xxx "In view of the foregoing observations, the lessee Sri Nanda Naik is considered to be an eligible beneficiary as per norm laid down in O.G.L.S Rule 1974 and omission (sic-permission) contained in W.L case no.- 676/73have been complied.

Send the case record to R.K to incorporate the following in te R.O.R in accordance with the clearance of Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide letter no.972 dated 25.01.90."

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, the lease being held valid, the subsequent purchaser

ought to have been treated as such. However, though the

name of Sakuntala Dash (petitioner's vendor) was recorded

in the Not-Final ROR, yet in the final ROR, the same was

recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi in the name of the

Government. Be it noted that during pendency of the

settlement operations, the petitioner had filed an objection

being Objection Case No. 5654 but the same was rejected.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision under Section

15(b) of the OSS Act registered as R.P Case No. 1694 of

2014 before the Additional Commissioner, Revision Court-

II, Odisha. After noting all the relevant facts, the revisional

authority by order dated 17.12.2024, remitted the matter to

the Tahasildar, again with the following observation:

"The petitioner is directed to file an application before the Tahasildar, Jatni along with all relevant documents after obtaining records pertaining to validity and legality of the lease hold land by lease sanction/reviewing authority for RoR correction. During the process of record of rights correction, the Tahasildar shall examine the validity/ legality of the lease and look into aspect of mistake of fact, suppression of fact, fraud of the lease sanctioned earlier and pass speaking order. The petitioner would have the liberty to file a revision case U/s 15(b), if the Tahasildar drops the process of correction of RoR on being satisfied that, the cause of action arise before the final publication of RoR with the certified copy of the said order. This Revision petition is dropped on merit."

Said order is impugned in the present writ

application.

4. Heard Mr. P.K.Mohanty, learned Senior counsel

with Mr. P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Ms. J. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

5. Mr. Mohanty would submit that once the lease

granted under the provisions of OGLS Act was held valid by

the competent authority, that is, the Tahasildar, the

revisional authority exercising power under Section 15(b) of

the OSS Act could not have reopened the said issue.

Moreover, the revisional authority could not have remitted

the matter to the Tahasildar to pass the order. He further

submits that the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to exercise

power under Section 15(b) of the Act.

6. Ms. J. Sahoo, learned ASC while fairly submitting

that revision ought to have been decided by the

Commissioner himself, further submits that it is for the

petitioner to satisfy the authority as regards the

genuineness of his claim.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this

Court is of the view that the revision having been filed

under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, such power is to be

exercised by the authority created by the statute for such

purpose. Needless to mention, the Tahasildar is not such

authority, rather the authority is the Board of Revenue.

Therefore, prima facie, the order remitting the matter to the

Tahasildar to examine the validity/legality of the lease and

look into the mistake of the fact etc. cannot be

countenanced being contrary to the statutory scheme. The

revisional Court could have directed the Tahasildar to

submit a factual report and the relevant records of the

lease case instead of relegating the matter entirely to be

decided by the Tahasildar. Though liberty has been granted

to the petitioner to prefer revision yet the order cannot be

sustained for the reason that the statutory authority

cannot exercise jurisdiction in a manner not contemplated

in the statute. It is trite that if the statute does not permit

such delegation by the revisional authority same cannot be

resorted to by such authority. Reference in this regard may

be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of

Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement.1

(1998) 7 SCC 162

8. In such view of the matter, the writ application is

allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is

remitted to the revisional Court to hear the revision afresh

after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned by

passing a reasoned order. The petitioner shall be at liberty

to raise all grounds available to him under law including

the ground that the lease case having been finalised in

favour of the lessee under the provisions of OGLS Act, the

authorities exercising power under the OSS Act cannot go

into the same. The revisional Court shall dispose of the

matter as early as possible, preferably within two months

from today. For convenience, the petitioner is directed to

appear before the revisional Court along with certified copy

of this order on 23rd March, 2026 for fixing further date of

hearing.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge