Orissa High Court
Simple Sujata Mishra vs State Of Odisha on 22 October, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Simple Sujata Mishra
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. The Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar
3. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
4. The Addl. Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer,
Bhubaneswar
5. The Asst. Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar
....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 22.10.2025
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOODesignation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 2 //
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 6th August, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.4163 of 2013.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially, Plot No.583/1651 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals of Khata No.325/59 in Mouza Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (erstwhile district of Puri) was leased out in the name of one, Pitabasa Behera by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974 and Record of Right (RoR) was prepared in his name. Subsequently, said Pitabasa Behera, for his legal necessity, sold out different portions of the leasehold property to different persons through his Power of Attorney holder, namely, Sura Pratap Singh Samanta. The Petitioner purchased Ac.0.100 decimals of leasehold property vide Registered Sale Deed (RSD) No.770 dated 23rd March, 1993 and was delivered with possession. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed Mutation Case No.3167 of 1995 and the land purchased by her was bifurcated from the leasehold property and was recorded in the name of the Petitioner in Plot No.583/1651/2582 to an extent of Ac.0.100 decimals under Khata No.325/925 of Mouza- Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity 'the case land').
3.1 When the matter stood thus, suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 was initiated by learned Additional District W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 3 // Magistrate, Bhubaneswar against the lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera and the lease granted in his favour was cancelled vide order dated 28th July, 1998. Although the Petitioner was the rightful owner in possession over the case land, but she was not served with notice of the aforesaid suo motu revision case initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the OGLS Act'). Thus, the Petitioner being aggrieved, filed W.P.(C) No.4824 of 2023 along with Smt. Bharati Satpathy, Chandrasekhar Deo and Snehalata Das, who had purchased different parcels of the leasehold property. This Court vide order dated 20th November, 2003, set aside the order passed in suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 and remitted the matter to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Petitioner and other co-purchasers appeared before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and contested the proceeding.
3.2. Upon hearing the purchasers including the Petitioner, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dropped the suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 vide order dated 21st June, 2006. Thus, the Petitioner became the absolute owner in possession over the case land. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the Petitioner is still in possession over the case land by exercising her right, title and interest thereon. The mutation RoR was also prepared in her W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 4 // name vide Annexure-3 and she was paying the land revenue. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the area and the Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the record, directed to record the land in Government khata under 'Abada Jogya Anabadi' status. The Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 12-A of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the Settlement Act') in Appeal Case No.4163 of 2013. The Additional Sub-Collector- cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective and without applying his mind to the facts and materials available on record, confirmed the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer. Hence, finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the lease granted in favour of the lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera, has been confirmed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in a proceeding under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. Hence, neither the Asst. Settlement Officer nor the Settlement Officer could have sat over the same as an Appellate Authority and directed to record the land in Government khata under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. Thus, he submits that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is per se illegal and is without jurisdiction. As such, the same is liable to be set aside and the RoR, if any, published in the name of the Government should be corrected in the name of the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOODesignation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 5 //
5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel opened his argument submitting that since the writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no counter affidavit is required to be filed in this case. It is his submission that in the meantime, final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act, has already been published in the name of the Government. Thus, the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act to file a revision challenging the correctness of entries in the final RoR in respect of the case land. The Petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy.
5.1 He further submits that the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in the impugned order under Annexure-5 has made it clear that he has no authority to grant/cancel the lease granted under the OGLS Act. As the land was originally recorded in the Government khata, he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Thus, the Petitioner was advised to approach the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar or any other forum for redressal of her grievances. Hence, he submits that the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed.
6. The instant writ petition was disposed of by this Court along with the case of Narottam Rath -v- State of Orissa and others [W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014, disposed of on 14th October, 2025] and a batch of cases vide common judgment dated 2nd January, 2023. The State Government assailed the said judgment in different SLP(C)s including the order passed in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 6 // dated 17th December, 2024, disposed of the SLP(C)s with the following direction:
"Delay condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that instead of deciding each case individually, on its given fact, the High Court proceeded to club and decide all the matters by presuming the facts to be common/identical and framing a common question of law.
As such on this short ground alone, the judgment requires interference, we are of the considered view that each case had to be considered on its own merits.
Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 were exercised prior to the finalization of the Record of Rights or at a subsequent stage was not considered by the High Court. Also as to whether the aggrieved parties had exhausted their remedies as provided under Section 12A and/or Section 15B of the said Act is also not considered by the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that all the petitioners before the Court had leases in their favour, in relation to which no Record of Rights was required to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the said Act.
As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting on the merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us, we remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.
We hope and expect that each case would be considered and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated before the High Court.
The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.1.2025. The parties undertake to W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 7 // fully co-operate in the proceedings before the High Court.
The special leave petitions are disposed of as above."
Hence, this writ petition is taken up independently for adjudication.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.
8. It is not disputed that the land in question was leased out and originally recorded in the name of Pitabasa Behera pursuant to order dated 11th October, 1974 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974. Subsequently, the Petitioner purchased the case land vide RSD No.770 dated 23rd March, 1993 and got the same mutated in her name in Mutation Case No.3167 of 1995. It is also not disputed that suo motu Revision Case No. 841 of 1998 initiated by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act was ultimately dropped vide order dated 21st June, 2006 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. Thus, it appears that the lease granted in favour of Pitabasa Behera in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974 was held to be valid and consequently, the Petitioner derived title over the case land pursuant to RSD No.770 dated 23rd March, 1993. Being in possession, the Petitioner also recorded the land in her name.
8.1. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation was started in the village, Pathargadia and the leasehold property W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 8 // was recommended to be recorded in Government khata by the Asst. Settlement Officer under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. The Petitioner also filed appeal under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act, which was dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel that final RoR in respect of the case land has already been published in favour of the Government. Thus, the question arises as to whether the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, when the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act.
9. Fact remains that the lease granted in favour of Pitabasa Behera was subsequently confirmed in suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998. Being the rightful owner, said Pitabasa Behera through his Power of Attorney, sold the case land to the Petitioner and delivered possession. Thus, the Petitioner stepped into the shoes of the lessee in respect of the case land, she has purchased.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the settlement authority does not have any jurisdiction to sit over the order passed either by Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar granting lease in favour of the lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera under the provisions of OGLS Act, or the order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar confirming the said lease and directed it to be recorded in the name of the Government. Thus, the order is without jurisdiction in view of the ratio in the case of Vijay Krishna W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 9 // Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar, Unit No.VII, Bhubaneswar represented through its Director, P. Vivek -v- State of Orissa and others (W.P. (C) No. 8774 of 2019, disposed of on 18th June, 2021) and Whirlpool Corporation -v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1. Of course, the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was decided relying upon the case of Lily Nanda -v- State of Odisha; 2018 (I) OLR 559, which was subsequently set aside by this Court in an Intra Court Appeal in W.A. No.535 of 2018. However, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"20. Much water has flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation."
10.1 The ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was subsequently followed in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. -v- The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.
11. Thus, in view of the ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Settlement Authority directing to record the case land in favour of the W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 10 // State Government is without jurisdiction. An order, which is without jurisdiction, is non est in the eye of law. As such, any action taken/order passed pursuant to the said order including publication of RoR in the name of the Government is also equally bad and without jurisdiction and thus cannot be sustained.
12. The Petitioner is fighting out litigations since 2013. Thus, relegating the Petitioner to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act will serve no purpose, particularly in view of the observations here-in-above and on the other hand, it will certainly prejudice the Petitioner. The case land was previously recorded in the name of the Petitioner by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No. 3167 of 1995 and the mutation RoR was also prepared in her name. Since the order basing upon which the final RoR has been published in favour of the State Government is held to be without jurisdiction, the same is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-5 and subsequent orders passed/action taken including the RoR in favour of the case land, stand set aside.
13. In view of the discussions made above, the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar has no other option to correct the RoR in respect of the case land under Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962. Consequently, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to record the case land in favour of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 16:47:12 // 11 // copy of this order and supply the corrected RoR to the Petitioner forthwith.
14. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 22nd October, 2025/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 9777 OF 2014 Page 11 of 11