Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of on 22 April, 2021
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
W.P.(C) No. 14000 of 2021
02. 22.04.2021 This matter is taken up through video
conferencing mode.
2. Heard Miss Deepali Mahapatra, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State-Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to
assail the order dated 16.09.2013 (Annexure-9)
passed by the Additional Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.3 passed in Appeal
Case No.524 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed by
the petitioner has been rejected and the land in
question, i.e., Sabik Plot No.502/1018 under Sabik
Khata No.282 to an extent of Ac.0.200 decimals,
corresponding to Hal Khata No.592, Hal Plot No.656
in Mouza Ogalapada under Jatni Tahasil (for short,
'the case land') was directed to be recorded in
Government Khata as 'Abada Yogya Anabad' Khata
in a proceeding under the Odisha Survey and
Settlement Act, 1958.
4. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that originally the case land which
is a piece of government land pertaining to Sabik Plot
No.502/1018 under Sabik Khata No.282/126 to an
extent of Ac.0.200 decimals, in Mouza Ogalapada
under Jatni Tahasil was leased out and settled in the
2
name of one Laxmidhar Barik under lease principle in
W.L. Case No.1859/66-67 (Annexure-1). Ultimately,
the petitioner became the owner in possession over
the case land by virtue of RSD dated 08.11.2010
(Annexure-6). At the stage of settlement of rent,
inadvertently Yadasta was prepared in favour of one
Smt. Minati Das, the vendor of the petitioner.
However, the Government initiated a Rent Objection
Case No.6081/2251 of 2013. And opposite party
No.6-Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony,
Bhubaneswar (now functioning at Major Settlement,
Jobra, Cuttack), without issuing any notice either to
the petitioner or to her vendor, vide order dated
11.09.2013 (Annexure-8) directed to record the case
land in 'Abada Yogya Anabadi' Khata. The petitioner
being aggrieved, filed appeal before the Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar (OP No.3), in Appeal Case No.524 of
2013, which was dismissed vide order dated
16.09.2013 (Annexure-9), and final ROR was
published under Annexure-10 in the name of the
Government. Thus, this writ petition has been filed
assailing the order under Annexure-9 and ROR under
Annexure-10.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Settlement Authority has no
jurisdiction to sit over the lease granted in respect
of the case land which was ultimately purchased by
3
the Petitioner. In support of her case, Miss
Mohapatra, learned counsel, relied upon the
decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10339 of 2018
decided on 27.06.2018 (Sukadev Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha and others), W.P.(C) No.21325 of 2014
decided on 02.05.2016 (Sitansu Sekhar Baral Vs.
State of Odisha and others) and W.P.(C) No.516 of
2016 decided on 21.07.2016 (Rabindranath Biswal
Vs. State of Odisha and others). For ready reference,
relevant portion of order dated 21.07.2016 passed
in W.P.(C) No.516 of 2016 is quoted below.
"5. Considering the above, it appears that in
the present case the lease was scrutinized earlier
and the revisional authority in Revision Case
No.179 of 1982 has confirmed that there is no
irregularity and illegality. Therefore, the appellate
authority should have directed to prepare the
Record of Rights in favour of the petitioner as he
has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of
the revisional authority. Since there is an error on
the face of the record, this Court in exercise of the
extra ordinary jurisdiction while quashing the
impugned order under Annexure-5 directs the
Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Cuttack-
opposite party no.2 to prepare the Record of
Rights in favour of the petitioner, as expeditiously
as possible, on production of certified copy of this
order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed
of."
7. Accordingly, Miss Mahapatra, learned
counsel for the Petitioner prays for a direction to
dispose of the writ petition in terms of the order
quoted above.
4
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State does not dispute either the
facts narrated above nor the orders passed by this
Court (supra) and submits that the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the earlier decisions
of this Court including the order dated 21.07.2016
passed in W.P.(C) No.516 of 2016. He, however,
submits that the ROR in respect of Ogalapada
Mouza under Jatni tahasil has been finally
published under Section 12-B of Odisha Survey and
Settlement Act, 1958. Thus, remanding the matter
to the Settlement Officer, who has no jurisdiction to
consider the Objection of the petitioner, will be a
futile exercise. He, therefore, submits that interest
of justice will be best served, if the Petitioner files a
Revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey &
Settlement Act, 1958 for correction of the ROR
under Annexure-10.
9. Taking into consideration the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
records, it appears that the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar-opposite party
No.6 has no jurisdiction to sit over the lease granted
in favour of Laxmidhar Barik. Although there is
force in the submission of Mr.Mishra, learned Addl.
Government Advocate to the effect that appropriate
remedy for the Petitioner after publication of the
5
final ROR under Section 12-B of the Act will be by
filing a petition under Section 15(b) of the Act; but
in view of the observations made by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No. No.516 of 2016
disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2016, the order
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer/
Settlement Officer under Annexure-9 is not
sustainable being without jurisdiction and
accordingly the ROR (Annexure-10) published
pursuant to the same is also not sustainable.
10. Accordingly, the order passed under
Annexure-9 and the ROR issued under Annexure-
10 stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Asst. Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Cuttack-
Opposite Party No.6, who shall consider the case of
the petitioner taking into consideration the lease
granted in favour of said Laxmidhar Barik and
subsequent transfers and pass necessary order in
accordance with law.
11. In order to avoid further delay in the matter,
the Petitioner is directed appear before the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Cuttack on
25th May, 2021 along with an authenticated copy of
this order to receive further instruction in the
matter. On appearance and filing relevant
documents in support of her case, the Assistant
Settlement Officer shall fix the date of hearing,
6
preferably within a period of one month there from
and proceed with the matter accordingly. He shall
also make an endeavour to dispose of the matter
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period
of four months from the date the matter becomes
ready for hearing.
12. As restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the
parties may utilize a printout of the order available
in the High Court's website, at par with certified
copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's
Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified
by Court's Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
................................
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
ss