[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Afr Judhisthir Routray & Another vs Uttam Bewa & Others ..... Opposite ... on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 23012 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India)
AFR Judhisthir Routray & another ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Uttam Bewa & others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. B. Baug, Sr. Advocate
with M/s. M.R. Baug, G.R. Sahoo,
& H. Sahu, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
st
31 March, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge the
order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar
in O.S.S. Case No. 1138 of 2023, whereby, the revision petition
filed by them under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and
Settlement Act, 1958 was dismissed as not maintainable.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
suit land originally stood recorded in the name of one Gadadhar
Pradhan in the Sabik Record of Rights (ROR). Upon his death,
the property devolved upon his legal heirs, namely, his wife,
Uttam Bewa and daughter, Palei Dei. Uttam Bewa acting for the
legal necessity of the family, transferred the entire suit land
measuring Ac.0.250 decimals in favour of the petitioners by
means of a registered sale deed bearing No. 5057 dated
11.09.1985 for consideration and delivered possession thereof.
It is contended that ever since such purchase, the petitioners
have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
land as rightful owners.
3. While the matter stood thus, Palei Dei, the
daughter of the original recorded tenant and co-sharer, without
any authority and in derogation of the earlier transfer executed
two registered sale deeds on 29.09.1999, vide Sale Deed No.
4020 and Sale Deed No. 4021, transferring the suit land in two
equal halves in favour of third parties, namely Sitanshu Sekhar
Choudhury (O.P No. 3) and Smt. Rama Panda (O.P No.4). Said
purchasers subsequently transferred their respective portions of
the suit land in favour of Ramesh Chandra Choudhury (O.P
no.-5) by executing registered sale deeds dated 12.06.2007.
Thereafter, Ramesh Chandra Choudhury, who is stated to be
the Director of M/s Nrican Infra Pvt. Ltd., transferred the entire
suit land in favour of the said company, i.e., Opposite Party No.
6, by way of a registered sale deed dated 23.06.2022. During
the Hal Settlement operation, the ROR was finally published on
21.11.2013, wherein the suit land was recorded in the names of
the subsequent purchasers, ignoring the prior purchase made
by the petitioners. Upon coming to know about such recording
and subsequent transactions, the petitioners filed the revision
petition under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act seeking correction of
the ROR.
4. The Revisional Authority upon due consideration
dismissed the revision petition holding, inter alia, that it lacks
jurisdiction to examine the validity of registered sale deeds and
that the dispute raised involves adjudication of title which
cannot be undertaken in a proceeding under Section 15(b) of
the OSS Act. Said order is impugned in the present writ
application.
5. Be it noted that despite service of notice, none
appeared on behalf of the private Opposite Party Nos. 3, 5, and
6. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2025, held that service of
notice upon them was sufficient on the basis of paper
publication. Similarly, notice upon Opposite Party Nos. 2(a) and
4 were also held sufficient. However, none appeared on their
behalf.
6. Heard Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Counsel with
Mr. G.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.N.
Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
7. Mr. Baug would argue that Revisional Authority
has committed an error in dismissing the revision petition on
the ground of maintainability. He submits that the petitioners
had acquired right, title, and interest over the suit land on the
basis of a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1985, much prior to
the Hal Settlement operation and final publication of the ROR.
He further submits that Revisional Authority failed to
appreciate that the revision petition was filed for correction of
the erroneous entries in the ROR, which did not reflect the pre-
existing rights of the petitioners. According to him, the
authority has misdirected itself in law by taking into account
subsequent transactions, particularly the sale deed of the year
2022, instead of examining whether the Hal ROR correctly
recorded the rights of the parties as on the date of final
publication.
He also argues that the authority, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act is competent to
examine the effect of registered documents for the limited
purpose of determining the correctness of the entries in the
ROR and the impugned order suffers from non-application of
mind.
8. Per contra, Mr.Patnaik would argue that the
Revisional Authority has rightly dismissed the revision petition
as not maintainable.Dispute raised by the petitioners involves
claims based on different registered sale deeds and
determination of the validity thereof, which essentially pertains
to adjudication of title.
He would further argue that the jurisdiction under
Section 15(b) of the OSS Act is limited to correction of entries in
the ROR and does not extend to deciding disputed questions of
title or examining the legality and validity of registered sale
deeds. According to him, the petitioners, in the guise of seeking
correction of the ROR are in fact seeking declaration of their
title and invalidation of subsequent transactions, which can
only be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.
9. This Court having heard learned counsel for the
parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and the
impugned order, this Court finds that the entire claim of the
petitioners is founded upon a prior registered sale deed of the
year 1985 and challenge to subsequent sale deeds executed by
other co-sharers and transferees. The petitioners seek to
contend that the sale made by Palei Dei in the year 1999 is void
and that the subsequent transfers made thereafter are invalid
and consequently, the entries made in the ROR reflecting such
transactions are erroneous.
Thus, this Court finds that the dispute raised is not
mere question of correction of entries in the ROR but essentially
relates to the validity of competing sale deeds and the
consequent flow of title in respect of the suit land.
10. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Behera v.
Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement1, it is well
settled that the jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act
is limited in scope and is intended for correction of entries in
the ROR and does not extend to adjudication of disputed
questions of title or to declare the validity or invalidity of
registered sale deeds.
11. In the present case, determination of the
petitioners' claim would necessarily require examination of the
legality of the sale deed of the year 1985, determination of the
rights of the co-sharers, adjudication upon the validity of
subsequent transfers, and ultimately a declaration of title in
favour of one party over the other. All such issues fall squarely
within the domain of the competent Civil Court.
12. Revisional Authority has rightly observed that it
lacks jurisdiction to examine or annul registered sale deeds.
The petitioners, in the guise of seeking correction of the ROR
are in effect inviting the authority to adjudicate title, which is
impermissible in law.
2014 SCC OnLine Ori 520
13. As regards the submission of Mr.Baug that the fact
that the petitioners' claim arises from a transaction prior to the
Hal Settlement would not, by itself, confer jurisdiction upon the
Revisional Authority to decide such complex questions of title.
14. This Court therefore, is of the considered view that
the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to
approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their
right, title and interest, along with consequential reliefs, in
accordance with law.
15. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court
finds no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.
..............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 31st March, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Mar-2026 16:20:42
