Orissa High Court
Chandra Sekhar Deo vs State Of Odisha on 19 December, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Chandra Sekhar Deo
...... 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. Sanjay Kumar Samantaray,
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 19.12.2025
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAKDesignation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 2 //
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 5th August, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.751 of 2013. The Petitioner also seeks for a direction to settle the land, she has purchased in her name and to correct the Record of Right (RoR) accordingly.
3. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially, Plot No.583/1651 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals of Khata No.325/1034 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 vide order dated 11th October, 1974 passed in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974. Accordingly, RoR was issued in favour of the lessee stipulating therein that the land could not be transferred within a period of five years from the date of lease. Pitabasa Behera, after a lapse of 18 years, alienated different parcels of land to different persons through his registered Power of Attorney for legal necessity. The Power of Attorney sold an area of Ac.0.100 decimals out of the leasehold property to the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed No.790 dated 24th March, 1993 and delivered possession to her. The Petitioner also got the land mutated in her name in Mutation Case No.3171 of 1995. The RoR was also corrected accordingly in her name in respect of bifurcated Plot No.583/1651/2578 under Khata No.325/921 situated in Pathargadia Mouza under W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 3 // Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity 'the case land'). The Petitioner, thus, continued to enjoy the case land exercising her right, title and interest thereon on payment of land revenue. After a lapse of twenty-four years from the date of the lease, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 against the original lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera and cancelled the lease granted in his name vide order dated 28 th July, 1998. Although the case land was recorded in the name of the Petitioner by that time, but neither the Petitioner nor any other purchaser was made party to the Revision Case. Thus, they had no occasion to know about cancellation of the lease in favour of the lessee in the Revision Case. When they came to know about the aforesaid order of cancellation of lease granted in favour of the lessee, the Petitioner along with three other transferees, namely, Smt. Simple Sujata Mishra, Smt. Bharati Satapathy and Smt. Snehalata Das preferred W.P.(C) No.4824 of 2023 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 20 th November, 2003, set aside the order dated 28th July, 1998 and remitted the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar entertained the suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 afresh and dropped the same vide order dated 21st June, 2006 holding that the subsequent transfer of land by the lessee to the purchasers including the Petitioner was established as per the documents and evidence available in the case record. Thus, the W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 4 // Petitioner became the absolute owner in possession over the case land.
3.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel that the Petitioner is still in possession over the case land by exercising her right, title and interest thereof. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the locality. The Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the record, directed to settle the leasehold property including the case land in Government Khata under 'Abada Jogya Anabadi' status. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Objection Case No.14335 of 2013 enclosing all relevant documents. But, the Petitioner was neither provided any opportunity of hearing in the said objection case nor the order passed therein was ever communicated to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed Appeal Case No.751 of 2013 before the Additional Sub- Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar under Section 12-A of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the Settlement Act'). The Additional Sub-Collector without taking into consideration the case of the Petitioner vide his order dated 5th August, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed the impugned order advising the Petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for redressal of her grievances so also to approach any other forum for settlement of her claim. Thereby the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer confirmed the order passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer in Objection Case.
W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAKDesignation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 5 //
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Samantaray, 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 leasehold property including the case 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.
5. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate opened his argument submitting that counter affidavit has been filed justifying the impugned order under Annexure-5. 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 on 21st November, 2013. 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 W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 6 // granted under the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the OGLS Act'). As the land was originally recorded in the Government khata, the Additional Sub- Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar 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 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.W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 7 // 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 8 // Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974. Subsequently, the Petitioner purchased the case land vide RSD No.790 dated 24th March, 1993 and got the same mutated in her name in Mutation Case No.3171 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. Thus, the lease granted in favour of Pitabasa Behera in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974 was held to be valid. It was also held therein that the transfers made by the lessee were valid. Consequently, the Petitioner derived title over the case land pursuant to RSD No.790 dated 24th March, 1993. Being in possession, the Petitioner also recorded the land in her name.
8.1. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the village, Pathargadia and the leasehold property was recommended to be recorded in Government khata by the Asst. Settlement Officer under 'Abada Jogya Anabadi' status. The Petitioner filed Objection Case before the Assistant Settlement Officer. She being aggrieved, also filed appeal under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act, which was dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate that final RoR in respect of the case land has already been published in favour of the Government. Thus, the question that arises for consideration is whether the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 9 // 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. The Settlement authorities ignoring the fact that the leasehold property was settled under the provision of the OGLS Act directed to record the land in Government Khata. In that process the Settlement authorities impliedly nullified the settlement made under OGLS Act.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the settlement authority did 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 the leasehold property 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 10 // of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1. Of course, while adjudicating the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court amongst other relied 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 11 // equally bad and without jurisdiction and thus cannot sustain. As such, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable, even if a statutory remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement is available to the Petitioner to assail the correctness of entries in the final RoR in the name of the Government under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act.
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. 3171 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 being non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-5 and subsequent orders passed/action taken including the RoR in favour of the Government in respect 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. Even if the final RoR in respect of the case land is published in the name of the Government, but the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is competent to correct the same pursuant to the W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2025 15:10:57 // 12 // direction of a competent Court of law. 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 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 19th December, 2025/Rojalin W.P.(C) No. 9776 OF 2014 Page 12 of 12