Orissa High Court
Kedar Ranjan Pandu vs State Of Odisha on 28 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: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Kedar Ranjan Pandu
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. The Addl. Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar
3. The Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony
Camp, Cuttack
4. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajjeet Roy,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 28.10.2025
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOODesignation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 2 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order passed in the month of April, 2013 under Annexure-1 (date not mentioned in the order) by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Objection Case No.10873/1149 of 2013 and also the order dated 16th September, 2013 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Sub- Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Suit No.1643 filed by the Petitioner under Section 22(2) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the Settlement Act').
3. Brief description of the relevant facts as revealed from the writ petition is that Plot No.1249 to an extent of Ac.1.435 decimals under Khata No.325/26 situated in Mouza Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity 'the leasehold property') was leased out in favour of one, Hadibandhu Mahakhud in W.L. Case No.824 of 1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, Record of Right (RoR) was also prepared in his name. Subsequently, suo motu revision case being L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the OGLS Act') was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in respect of the leasehold property. The Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 21st September, 1987, cancelled lease of the leasehold property granted in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud, the lessee. Assailing the same, the lessee preferred W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 3 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 No.4814 of 2005 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20th June, 2005 remitting the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication providing opportunity of hearing to the lessee. On remand, the Additional District Magistrate conducting a fresh enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the lessee, dropped L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 vide order dated 11th August, 2006. When the matter stood thus, the lessee, for his legal necessity, alienated Ac.0.061 decimals (for brevity 'the case land') out of the leasehold property in favour of the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed (RSD) dated 1st August, 2011 and delivered possession thereof to the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner has possessed the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon. Thereafter, the Petitioner went on paying land revenue in respect of the case land on behalf of the lessee. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to mutate the land in his name. Only then he was informed that the preliminary RoR of the leasehold property including the case land has been prepared in the name of the State Government under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. Thus, being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Objection Case No.10873/1149 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. The Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the revenue record and ignoring the fact that the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has confirmed the lease granted in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud, dismissed the objection case. Thus, the Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 4 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 being aggrieved, preferred appeal (Suit No.1643) under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16th September, 2013 (Annexure-2). In the meantime, final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act has already been published in favour of the State Government.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel that the Petitioner could have filed a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act before the Member, Board of Revenue assailing correctness of entries made in the final RoR in respect of the case land. But, the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 being without jurisdiction, the same are being challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the case of Padmanav Prusty -v- State of Orissa and others (W.P. (C) No. 12776 of 2014), Deepak Kumar Panda -v- State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.9010 of 2019) and Pratap Kumar Nayak -v- State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.20178 of 2020), Simple Sujata Mishra -vrs.- State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No. 9777 of 2014) in support of his submission.
4.1 Relying upon the aforesaid case laws, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that when an order is without jurisdiction or the Authority exercised power usurping his jurisdiction, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. It is further submitted that since the Settlement Authorities are bent upon to record the land in favour of the State Government, no fruitful W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 5 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 purpose would have been served by filing a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act.
4.2 Further, this Court in the case of Narottam Rath -v- State of Odisha and others and batch of cases including the instant writ petition disposed of vide common judgment dated 2nd January, 2023 held that a writ petition would be maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case although a statutory remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act is available to the Petitioner. Of course, the State Government assailed the said common judgment in different SLP(C)s including the order passed in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order 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 W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 6 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 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 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. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the RoR in respect of the case land in the name of the Petitioner pursuant to the RSD dated 1st August, 2011 and prepare the RoR accordingly.
5. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and relevant orders and documents are available in the case record, no counter affidavit is required to be filed in this case. It is his W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 7 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 submission that although the Petitioner filed objection under Section 12 of the Act but, he did not participate in the hearing of the objection. The Petitioner was absent on call at the time of hearing of the objection before the Asst. Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar. Thus, the objection was disposed of on the materials available on record. He further submits that the Petitioner could not prove his possession over the case land before the Asst. Settlement Officer. The Petitioner also did not file relevant documents in support of his case. Thus, the Asst. Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar has committed no error in passing the order under Annexures-1 and there is also no illegality in the order under Annexure-2, as the Additional Sub- Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar after verifying the case record, passed the impugned order holding that the leasehold property should be recorded in the name of the State Government.
5.1 It is his submission that the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act, to assail the correctness of entries in the RoR prepared in the name of the State Government in respect of the leasehold property. Without availing this efficacious statutory remedy, the Petitioner has approached this Court. Since the Petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy, the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable and the Petitioner should be relegated to file revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act. It is his submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 8 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 remitting the matter has also observed that while adjudicating the matter, this Court should find out whether the Petitioner had exhausted the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act or not. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.
7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the leasehold property was settled in favour of one, Hadibandhu Mahakhud by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No.824 of 1974. The said settlement was tested in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 initiated suo motu by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. Initially, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled the lease granted in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud. But, subsequently, pursuant to the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.4814 0f 2005, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar made a fresh enquiry and dropped the suo motu revision initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. Thus, the lease granted in favour of said Hadibandhu Mahakhud was held to be valid. When the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud was enjoying the leasehold property exercising his right, title and interest thereon, he sold Ac.0.061 decimals in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of RSD dated 1st August, 2011 and delivered possession. The said fact is not disputed by Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 9 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 Advocate. It is however revealed from the record that the Petitioner could not mutate the case land in his favour. But, it is submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel that when the Petitioner made an attempt to mutate the case land in his name, he came to know that settlement operation had started in the area and the entire leasehold property has been recorded in the name of the State Government in preliminary RoR, published under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed Objection Case No.10873/1149 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. The Asst. Settlement Officer passed an undated order under Annexure-1 without taking note of the developments, more particularly, the fact that the lease granted in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud was confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 initiated suo motu under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. The said order was never challenged or modified by any Court of law and thus attained finality.
8. Perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-1 reveals that the Asst. Settlement Officer conveniently ignored the settlement made in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud, which conferred a title by virtue of lease granted in his favour. Thus, the Asst. Settlement Officer appears to have acted illegally in not taking into consideration the lease granted in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud. The Asst. Settlement Officer while disposing of the objection filed under Section 12 W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 10 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 of the Settlement Act, acted without jurisdiction by impliedly cancelling the lease granted in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud, which had already been confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987. Law is well settled that the lease granted under the OGLS Act cannot be set aside or cancelled in a proceeding under the Settlement Act. Thus, the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar acted without jurisdiction in directing to record the land in favour of the State Government when the lease granted in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud was held to be valid. It further appears from the order under Annexure-2 that the order passed in appeal (Suit No.1643), the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar without discussing the materials on record as well as the settlement made in favour of the lessee and subsequent purchase made by the Petitioner by virtue of the RDS, dismissed the appeal.
9. Very astonishingly the Additional Sub-Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar suggested that the Petitioner should approach the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for redressal of his grievances, who had no power to pass any order in view of the ongoing settlement operation. Be that as it may, both the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Additional Sub-Collector- cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar, committed manifest error of law and acted without jurisdiction in directing that the land be recorded in the name of the State Government.
W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOODesignation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 11 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03
10. In the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar, Unit No.VII, Bhubaneswar represented through its Director, P. Vivek, -vrs.- State of Odisha and others [W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019 disposed of on 18th June, 2021] this Court held as under:
"30. Nevertheless, the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority when it acts in a manner not recognized under law. In all these writ petitions, the properties in question were settled under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. The settlement authority also accepted the same and proceeded in the settlement operation up to the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958. But, surprisingly the authority under the Act has acted in a different manner and passed the impugned orders without recognizing the settlement of the land under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. Law is well settled that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act. There is ample provision under the O.G.L.S. Act to cancel the lease granted in favour of beneficiary and in fact, the said settlements had undergone the test of its validity. It appears from the impugned orders that the Assistant Settlement Officer/Addl. Sub-Collector conveniently avoided the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act by ignoring the same, which is not permissible under law. The impugned orders have, in effect, resulted in cancelling the lease granted in favour of beneficiary, which is not within the domain of the settlement authorities. My view gets support from the case of Lily Nanda -vs- State of Odisha reported in 2018 (1) OLR 559. As such, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and the same are void. The action taken or publication made pursuant to the said void orders are also equally ineffective and no nest in the eyes of law. Thus, final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 pursuant to the void orders is not sustainable in the eyes of law."W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 12 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 10.1. This Court while recording its finding in Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra), referred to Lily Nanda -v- State of Odisha; 2018 (I) OLR 559. The judgment rendered in Lily Nanda (supra) was assailed in W.A. No.535 of 2018. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the W.A., held that the ratio in the case of Lily Nanda (supra) will not be treated as a precedent. Be that as it may, this Court in the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has also relied upon several other case laws to come to the conclusion as aforesaid. Further, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation -v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1, 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."
10.2 As already held the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio, as the Assistant Settlement Officer by directing the leasehold property to be recorded in the name of the Government has impliedly cancelled the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under the OGLS Act and the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar reiterated the same by directing to record the case land in the name of the State Government. Hence, the W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 13 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. As such, the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 being not sustainable in the eye of law are set aside.
11. As discussed earlier the Petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedy under Sections 12 and 12-A of the Settlement Act. Thus, the question arises as to whether the Petitioner should be relegated to work out the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act or not. In view of the discussions made above, relegating the Petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement Act will further harass him, as he is fighting with litigations since 2013.
12. Further in view of the discussions made nothing remains to be adjudicated in a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act. Thus, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, has no other option than to correct the RoR by virtue of the settlement made in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud, which has been tested and held to be valid by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu revision initiated under Section 7-A(3) of OGLS Act.
13. Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, provides that the Tahasildar has the power to correct the entries even after publication of the final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act, if directed by a competent Court of law. Hence, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall record the case land in favour of the Petitioner and publish the RoR accordingly W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack // 14 // Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:50:03 within a period of eight weeks hence. The corrected copy of the RoR prepared in the name of the Petitioner shall be supplied to him forthwith.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly 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 Dated 28th October, 2025/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 19078 OF 2014 Page 14 of 14