[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bibhuti Bhusan Ray vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14523 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Bibhuti Bhusan Ray ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Ms. Sradha Das, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr.A.R. Dash,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
___________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
10 March, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated
11.04.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in
Mutation Case No.29182 of 2022, whereby the prayer of
the petitioner to record the land in question in his favour
was disallowed.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would
be apt to mention that this is the seventh approach of the
petitioner to this Court seeking more or less the same
relief. That a citizen of this country has had to repeatedly
knock the doors of this Court is by itself a matter of
concern.
3. The land in question was settled in favour of one
Bhaskar Sethi as a lessee under the provisions of Orissa
Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). The
lessee, after obtaining permission from the competent
authority under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms
Act, 1960 (OLR Act) and the Bhubaneswar Development
Authority (BDA), sold the case land to the petitioner vide
RSD No.1466/1985 dated 01.03.1950. The land was
however, resumed in the year 2002 by invoking power
under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act but without serving
any notice on the petitioner. The petitioner having
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2009, a
Division Bench, by order dated 29.07.2011 set aside the
order of resumption in respect of the case land. The
petitioner filed Misc. Case No.80 of 2012 before the
Tahasildar for correction of Hal-ROR but as no action was
taken for years together, he approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.8307 of 2014. By order dated 25.06.2014, this
Court directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within
four months. While the matter stood thus, settlement
operation commenced in the area in question. Despite
requests by the petitioner, the settlement authorities
recorded the land in the name of Government as Abada
Jogya Anabadi. The petitioner filed a revision under
Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act,
before the Board of Revenue. By order dated 29.07.2022,
the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court
under Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the case by
directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the land
in favour of the petitioner after verifying all
original/relevant documents and conducting a field
enquiry.
4. The petitioner filed the aforementioned mutation
case, which not being disposed of for long, he approached
this Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2023. This Court, by
order dated 30.08.2023 directed the Tahasildar to dispose
of the case within two months. The petitioner had to file
contempt application before this Court in view of non-
compliance. Ultimately, the mutation case was heard and
disposed of by disallowing the claim of the petitioner by
the impugned order.
5. The State did not file any counter, though, the
State counsel preferred to make oral submissions. Notice
on the private Opposite Parties was duly served but there
was no appearance from their side.
6. Heard Ms. Sradha Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, Additional Government
Advocate for the State.
7. Ms. Das assails the impugned order by
submitting that the Tahasildar exceeded his jurisdiction in
invoking power under the provisions of OGLS Act while
considering the mutation proceeding under OSS Act. She
further submits that even otherwise, once a Division
Bench of this Court has set aside the order of resumption
under Section 3(b) of the OGLS Act, it is no longer open to
the Tahasildar to reopen the issue unilaterally. Further,
the order of the Tahasildar also runs contrary to the order
passed by the revisional Court under Section 15(b) of the
OSS Act.
8. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government
Advocate fairly submits that as per the provisions of OSS
Act, the Tahasildar has to act as per the directions issued
by the revisional Court.
9. The facts of the case are not disputed. The land
leased out in favour of the original lessee was resumed
purportedly under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act as per
order dated 16.07.2002 passed in W.L. Case No.909 of
1972. Said order was assailed by the petitioner before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2009. A Division Bench of
this Court, by order dated 29.07.2011, set aside the order
insofar as it relates to the land purchased by the
petitioner. Said order was never challenged and has thus
attained finality.
10. In the Hal settlement operations, the land was
again recorded in Government Khata as Abada Jogya
Anabadi as per ROR published on 14.11.2013. The
petitioner questioned the same before the Board of
Revenue in a revision petition under Section 15(b) of the
OSS Act. By order dated 29.07.2022, the revisional
authority after noting all relevant facts inter alia, held as
follows:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to verify
all original/relevant documents and conduct a field
enquiry and after due verification the suit plot may be
recorded in favour of the present petitioner following
due process of law.
True copy of order sent to Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar with a separate letter for information
and necessary action.
Order pronounced in the open Court today the 29th
day of July of 2022.
11. On such basis, the petitioner filed the mutation
case in question, which came to be rejected on
23.02.2024. In the writ application (W.P.(C) No.8361 of
2024), this Court again disposed of the writ application
inter alia, holding as follows:-
"6.2. This Court after going through the order
passed under Annexure-1 and Annexure-5 is of the
view that the land purchased by the petitioner from
the original lessee is required to be recorded in his
name taking into account the nature of the land and
its use.
6.3. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order
dated 23.02.2024 so passed by the Opposite Party
No.4 under Annexure-8, remits the matter to the said
authority to record the land in the name of the
petitioner so purchased by him from the original
lessee taking into account the nature of the land and
its use within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of this order."
12. Thus, there are as many as three orders, one by
a Division Bench, one by a Single Bench of this Court and
the other by the Revisional Authority under Section 15(b)
of the OSS Act, in favour of the petitioner.
13. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the
Tahasildar after verification of records held as follows:-
"The applied land stood recorded in Govt. khata
and in the Hal ROR, it also stands recorded in Govt.
khata. It is revealed from the report of R.I. concerned,
the purchased land is not being used for the purpose
of agriculture for which it was leased out. It is
pertinent to mention here that Tahasildar as a
statutory authority and is strictly governed by the
provisions contained as per 3(B) of O.G.L.S Act, 1962,
since the O.G.L.S Act 1962 is of widest amplitude.
There is no fitter on the portion of Tahasildar/Addl.
Tahasildar to resume the lease hold land. In view of
the above facts, the claim of the petitioner is
disallowed and the case is disposed of."
[Emphasis added]
14. It would be proper at this stage to refer to the
power conferred upon the Tahasildar in the mutation
proceeding. Rule 35 of the OSS Rules, 1962 being
relevant, is extracted herein below:-
"All proceedings commenced on a report, application
or otherwise under this Chapter shall be registered as
mutation cases and each such case shall be
numbered and entered in register in Form No.8 to be
called the Mutation Register:
Provided that changes in any entry of the
record-of-rights arising out of an order to decree of
Revenue or a Civil Court or the order of a Tribunal
constituted under any law for the time being in force
shall be numbered and entered in the Register as
separate cases and carried out by the Tahasildar
immediately on receipt of such order or decree, as the
case may be, and it shall not be necessary to
commence a Mutation Proceeding for that purpose"
15. Plain reading of the above provision makes it
abundantly clear that once a Superior Court/Authority
has issued a direction for recording of the land, the
Tahasildar has no option but to comply with the same.
The direction of the Superior Authority to verify the
records/documents and to conduct field enquiry has to be
understood in the above context and not interpreted as
conferment of independent power on the Tahasildar to
decide the case afresh.
16. Even otherwise, the mutation proceeding is
initiated under the provisions of OSS Act read with the
rules framed thereunder. On the other hand, resumption
of leased land is governed under Section 3(B) of the OGLS
Act. Obviously, the Tahasildar exercising power conferred
by the OSS Act and the rules framed thereunder cannot
overreach his jurisdiction by encroaching upon any
subject matter covered under the OGLS Act. This
unilateral usurpation of power by the Tahasildar cannot
be countenanced in law. The Tahasildar, in the impugned
order has described himself as a statutory authority
strictly governed by the provisions of Section 3(B) of the
OGLS Act overlooking the fact that the power to be
exercised by him in a mutation proceeding is derived not
from the said Act but from the OSS Act. His further
observation that there is no fetter (wrongly mentioned as
'fitter') on the power (wrongly mentioned as 'portion') of
Tahasildar to resume the leasehold land is completely
fallacious and contrary to all canons of law and legal
procedure. Needless to mention, the Tahasildar in a
mutation proceeding is bound and fettered by the
Limitations Prescribed in Rules 34 and 35 of the Rules,
which he cannot overcome.
17. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds considerable force in the contentions advanced by
the petitioner and holds that the impugned order, being a
product of gross illegality, cannot be sustained.
18. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The Tahasildar is directed to
record the land in question in favour of the petitioner
without any further delay, and in any case, not later than
one month from the date of production of certified copy of
this order by the petitioner.
...............................
(Sashikanta Mishra),
Judge
High Court
Digitally Signed of Orissa, Cuttack
th Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI
The 10 of March,
Designation:2026/Puspanjali
Junior Stenographer Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 10-Mar-2026 16:20:22
