Orissa High Court
Laxmidhar Sa (Dead) & Others vs Addl. Commissioner Settlement And ... on 26 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23458 of 2021
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Laxmidhar Sa (dead) & Others ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
Addl. Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation,
Sambalpur & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr. P.K. Ray, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Bhuyan, Senior Advocate.
Assisted by Ms. S. Sahoo, Adv.
(For the Opp. Party Nos.4 & 12) Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel (For the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3).
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 1 of 16 Date of Hearing : 09.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.09.2025 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners (Laxmidhar Sa, Sumitra Sa & Sanyasi Sa, as successors of Kasta Sa) praying for quashing the final order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, during Hal settlement, the case land was recorded in the name of their predecessor Kasta Sa, to which, Gangadhar Kalo challenged by filing Revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 vide R.P. No.991 of 2017 before the Opp. Party No.1 praying for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of Kartika Sa to his name stating in his Revision Petition that, the case land originally belonged to Kartika Sa. WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 2 of 16 His father was Khageswar Kalo. Khageswar Kalo was the daughter of Kartika Sa.
According to the Revision Petition of Gangadhar Kalo, Sabik R.o.R of the case land was published in the name of Kartika Sa. Kartika Sa died in the year 1962 leaving behind his only daughter Dukhi Kalo. Dukhi Kalo died in the year 1970 leaving behind his two sons i.e. Khageswar Kalo and Diga Kalo. Diga Kalo died issueless in the year 1982. Khageswar Kalo died in the year 1996 leaving behind Gangadhar Kalo (petitioner in R.P. No.991 of 2017) as his successor.
Therefore, the case land left by Kartika Sa ultimately devolved upon Gangadhar Kalo (the petitioner in R.P. No.991 of 2017).
Kasta Sa is a stranger to Kartika Sa. For which, the recording of the case land in the name of Kasta Sa during the Hal Settlement is baseless. Therefore, Gangadhar Kalo as only successor of Kartika Sa filed R.P. No.991 of 2017 before Opp. Party No.1 under Section 15 of OSS Act, 1958 praying for WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 3 of 16 recording of the case land in his name correcting the same from the name of Kasta Sa.
To which, the successors of Kasta Sa (Opp. Parties in R.P. No.991/2017, petitioners in this writ petition) objected taking their stands that, Kasta Sa was adopted by Kartika Sa and he (Kasta Sa) was recognized as the son of Kartika Sa in the society for all purposes, to which, Dukhi Kalo and his son Khageswar Kalo (predecessors of Gangadhar Kalo) admitted. As the case land originally belong to Kartika Sa and as Kasta Sa is the adopted son of Kartika Sa, for which, after the death of Kartika Sa, the case land was properly recorded during settlement operation in the name of Kasta Sa as the adopted son as well as successor of Kartika Sa.
After the death of Kartika Sa, the case land left by Kartika Sa devolved upon Kasta Sa, as Kasta Sa is the adopted son of Kartika Sa. Kasta Sa was possessing the case land exclusively being the exclusive owner thereof.
Due to long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of Kasta Sa over the case land and thereafter by his successors i.e. Laxmidhar Sa and others (Petitioners in this Writ Petition), WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 4 of 16 they (Petitioners in this Writ Petition) have perfected their title over the case land by way of adverse possession. For which, recording of the case land in the name of their predecessor i.e. Kasta Sa was not challenged by Gangadhar Kalo since long. That apart, during settlement operation, Khageswar Kalo and Dukhi Kalo both had given their consent for recording the case land in the name of Kasta Sa. So, the recording of the case land in the name of Kasta Sa is not improper under law. The R.o.R of the case land from the name of Kasta Sa to the name to the name of Gangadhar cannot changed as per law.
3. After hearing from both the sides, the Opp. Party No.1 allowed that Revision vide R.P. No.991 of 2017 filed by Gangadhar Kalo on dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) on contest discarding the claim of Laxmidhar Kalo and others (petitioners in this writ petition) and directed Tahasildar to record the case land under Khata No.11 in the name of Gangadhar Kalo son of Khageswar Kalo correcting the same from the name of Kasta Sa assigning the reasons that, It is established that, Bharat Sa and Kartika Sa were the two sons of Vota Sa. They belong to Bhuyian by Caste, which is WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 5 of 16 coming within Schedule Tribe Category. The case land originally belong to Kartika Sa. Kartika Sa died leaving behind Dukhi Kalo as his successor. Dukhi Kalo died in the year 1970 leaving behind her two sons i.e. Khageswar Kalo and Diga Kalo. Diga Kalo died issueless in the year 1982. Khageswar died in the year 1996 leaving behind Gangadhar Kalo (petitioner in the R.P. No.991/2017) as his successor.
Kasta Sa is not the adopted son of Kartika Sa. There is no material in the record to establish that, Kasta Sa was the adopted son of Kartika Sa. For which, after the death of Kartika Sa, Dukhi Kalo, Diga Kalo and Khageswar Kalo, the case land left by them has devolved upon Gangadhar Kalo as per law. Even though, they belong to Bhuyian Caste coming under schedule tribe category and even though, the Opp. Parties (petitioners in this writ petition) are admitting that, they are Hindus, claiming that, they are not governed by Hindu Law being the members of schedule tribe, but Dukhi Kalo being the only daughter of Kartika Sa, she (Dukhi Kalo) inherited the case land left by Kartika Sa as his sole successor. After the death of Dukhi Kalo, the case land left by her devolved upon Khageswar Kalo and Diga Kalo. After the death of Khageswar Kalo and Diga Kalo, the case land left by them devolved upon Gangadhar Kalo (petitioner in the Revision). For which, Gangadhar Kalo is the sole successor of Kartika Sa. So, the question of claiming any interest in the case land by Kasta Sa as the adopted son of Kartika Sa is not sustainable under law, as, there is no WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 6 of 16 material in the record to establish that, Kasta Sa is the adopted son of Kartika Sa. That apart, the plea of adverse possession taken by the Opp. Parties in R.P. No.991 of 2017 against Gangadhar Kalo (petitioner in R.P. No.991 of 2017) in respect of the case land is their indirect admission to the ownership of Gangadhar Kalo over the case land. For which, on the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1) passed final order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) for recording of the case land in the name of Gangadhar Kalo exclusively correcting the same from the name of Kasta Sa.
4. On being aggrieved with the said said order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 in favour of Gangadhar Kalo by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1), the Opp. Parties in the R.P. No.991 of 2017 challenged the same by filing this writ petition being the petitioners against Gangadhar Kalo (Opp. Party No.4) and others praying for quashing the above final order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 by the Opp. Party No.1.
5. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 7 of 16 Nos.4 & 12 and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3.
6. In order to assail the impugned order passed by the Opp. Party No.1, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners elided upon the following decisions:
I. Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Others vs. Balbir Singh reported in 2021 INSC 473.
II. Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary & Others reported in 2024 (1) CCC 3. III. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Yogendra Mohan Sengupta & Others reported in AIR 2024 SC 859.
IV. S. Kasi Vs. State reported in 2020 (II) OLR 44. V. Balini Prasad (D) through LRs Vs. Durga Devi reported in (2023) 6SCC 708. VI. Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in AIR 2023 SC 5064.
VII. B.L. Sreedhar & Others Vs. K.M. Munireddy (dead) & Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 578.
VIII. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others Vs. Manjit Kaur & Others reported in 130 (2020) CLT 228.
IX. Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2021 (4) CCC 147.
X. Alekha Chandra Rath & Others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and Others reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 240.
XI. Sachidananda Rout Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2011 (I) CLR (SC) 640.
XII. Pradeep Kumar Behera & Others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement & Others reported in 2015 (I) ILR-Cut545.
XIII. Dasarath Naik Vs. Gura Bewa & Others reported in AIR 1972 Ori.78.
WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 8 of 16 XIV. Pratap Singh (dead) Through LRs. & Other Vs. Shiv Ram (dead) Through LRs reported in AIR 2020 SC 1382
7. On the contrary, in support of the order passed by the Opp. Party No.1, the learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.4 & 12 relied upon the following decisions:
I. Ganesh Das Vs. Jagabandhu Prusti & Others reported in 37 (1971) CLT 420.
II. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Ponnusamy & Others reported in (2022) 11 Supreme Court Cases 520. III. Bikala Barik Vs. Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Others reported in 2025 (I) OLR 1002. IV. Ram Charan Vs. Sukharam reported in 2025 INSC 865.
8. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides on the basis of the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 against the petitioners of this writ petition, the crux of this writ petition is that, I) Whether the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1) for recording the case land in the name of Gangadhar Kalo (Opp. Party No.4 of WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 9 of 16 this writ petition) on the ground of inheritance and succession is sustainable under law?
II) Whether the observations made by the Opp. Party No.1 in the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-1) holding that, Kasta Sa is not the adopted son of Kartika Sa is proper?
III) Whether the preparation of R.o.R in the name of a person on consent of the land owner without any valid document of transfer by the land owner can be held as proper under law?
9. In order to have the just decision of this writ petition, the above three points fixed for determination are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically one after another hereunder;
10. So far as the 1st point raised on behalf of the petitioners i.e. Whether the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-
7) passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1) for recording the case land in the name of Gangadhar Kalo (Opp. Party No.4 of this writ petition) on the ground of inheritance and succession is sustainable under law is concerned;
WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 10 of 16
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Absalam Paik & Others Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Gajapati & Others reported in 2011 (I) CLR (SC) 937 that, in the absence of any valid document establishing the title of the "D" over the case land, the entry in the R.o.R is of no help. (Para No.10) II. In a case between Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag Vs. Arun Kumar Bharadwaj (dead) through LRs & Others reported in 2021 (II) OLR (SC) 904 that, R.o.R or Revenue Record, prepared without any order or without any supporting document, shall not create any right in favour of the recorded person.
(Para Nos.27 & 28) III. In a case between Mohammad Maqbool Vs. State of J, K & L & Others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 229 that, preparation of the revenue record in violation of law of succession, cannot be sustainable under law. (Para No.10).
IV. In a case between Pabani Barik Vs. Bhubaneswar Development Authority represented through Its Secretary & Another reported in 2001 (II) OLR 221 that, there is no document to show that, the petitioner has legal right on the property, an order of mutation to the name of the petitioner by the Tahasildar is not based on any document, the said order for recording the same in the name of the petitioner, shall be deemed as non-est in the eye of law. (Para Nos.6 & 7) V. In a case between Purna Chandra Patnaik Vs. Kalidas Sen & Other reported in 1978 CLT (46) NOC 38 that, if the transfer is not valid in law and does not convey any title, merely because, the transfer has been followed by mutating the names of the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that, the transfer has been effected to.
VI. In a case between Govinda Naik Vs. Sankar Patro & Others reported in 1961 CLT Note-45 that, if the very foundation of the entry in the Khatian does not exist, then, the presumption in favour of its correctness losses its value altogether.
11. Here in this matter at hand, when undisputedly the suit properties originally belonged to Kartika Sa. Gangadhar Kalo WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 11 of 16 (Opp. Party No.4 of this writ petition) is the successor of Kartika Sa through his daughter Dukhi Kalo and when there is no material or document on behalf of the petitioners to establish that, Kasta Sa was the adopted son of Kartika Sa, then, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, there was no basis for recording the case land by the Settlement Authorities in the name of Kasta Sa. For which, the impugned order passed in R.P. No.991 of 2017 by the Opp. Party No.1 for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of Kasta Sa to the name of the successor of Kartika Sa i.e. to the name of Gangadhar Kalo cannot be held as erroneous.
12. So far as the 2nd point raised on behalf of the petitioners i.e. Whether the observations made by the Opp. Party No.1 in the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-1) holding that, Kasta Sa is not the adopted son of Kartika Sa is proper is concerned;
When there is no document to show that, Kasta Sa was adopted by Kartika Sa and when it is established that, Gangadhar Kalo (Opp. Party No.4) is the successor of Kartika WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 12 of 16 Sa through his daughter Dukhi Kalo, then, at this juncture, the rejection to the pleas of the Opp. Parties in R.P. No.991 of 2017 by the Opp. Party No.1 that, Kasta Sa is the adopted son of Kartika Sa cannot be held as illegal.
13. So far as the 3rd point raised on behalf of the petitioners i.e. Whether the preparation of R.o.R in the name of a person on consent of the land owner without any valid document of transfer by the land owner can be held as proper under law is concerned, On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Atal Shrivastava Vs. Devprasad & Another reported in (IV) 2012 Civ. L.T. 114 (Chhattishgarh) (DB) that, title cannot be passed from one person to another on consent. (Para Nos.23 & 24) II. In a case between Ambika Prasad Thakur and others Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai (dead) by his Legal Representatives and others Etc. reported in AIR 1966 SC 605 that, title cannot pass by mere admission. (Para No.13) III. In a case between Biplab Bose Vs. Mritunjoy Bose and Others reported in 2023 (4) CCC 225 Cal. that, title of a property cannot pass from one person to another person by way of admission. IV. In a case between Sm. Pankajini Debi & Others Vs. Sudhir Dutta & Others reported in AIR 1956 Cal. 669 that, title or title to land does not pass by admission when the statute requires a deed of transfer.WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 13 of 16
V. In a case between Smt. Damayanti Panda (since dead) Smt. Chandrashree Panigrahi Vs. Bijoy Tanti & Others reported in 2019 (1) OLR 93 that, to transfer ownership, a document is required. VI. In a case between Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Others Vs. M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Others reported in 2025 (3) CCC 48 (SC) that, immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. (Para No.16)
14. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioners are claiming that, due to the consent of the predecessors of Gangadhar Kalo i.e. Dukhi Kalo and Khageswar Kalo, the R.o.R of the case land was prepared by the Settlement Authorities in the name of Kasta Sa as the owner of the same and when undisputedly no registered deed of conveyance in respect of the case land has been executed by Dukhi Kalo & Khageswar Kalo in favour of Kasta Sa, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the recording of the case land in the name of Kasta Sa even, at the consent of Dukhi Kalo and Khageswar Kalo cannot be held as legal.
For which, the findings and observations made by the Opp. Party No.1 in the impugned order that, the recording of the case land in the name of Kasta Sa even at the consent of WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 14 of 16 Dukhi Kalo and Khageswar Kalo was not proper under law cannot be held as erroneous.
In addition to that, the petitioners of this writ petition have indirectly admitted to the ownership of Gangadhar Kalo in the case land claiming their title through adverse possession in respect of the case land against Gangadhar Kalo.
15. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the ownership of Gangadhar Kalo over the case land as the successor of Kartika Sa is established and when as per the impugned order vide Annexure-7, the Opp. Party No.1 has directed for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of Kasta Sa to the name of Gangadhar Kalo, then, at this juncture, the said impugned order passed by the Opp. Party No.1 vide Annexure-7 is not erroneous in any manner.
16. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners does not arise.
WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 15 of 16
So, the decisions relied by the petitioners indicated in Para No.6 of this Judgment have become inapplicable to this matter at hand for the reasons assigned above.
17. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must fail.
18. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest.
19. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 27-Sep-2025 10:34:52 WP(C) No.23458 of 2021 Page 16 of 16