Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Another on 15 January, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.37075 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sankar Sethi ... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Another
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Samal, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 15.01.2026 WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 1 of 16 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) for the preparation of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of the petitioner correcting the same from the name of the Government and also correcting the Kisam thereof from Chhota Jungle to Baje Phasala-3 as it was in the previous R.o.R in the name of the vendor of the petitioner.
2. The case land is Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata No.2239 in Mouza-Patharagadia, which corresponds to Sabik Plot No.582, which corresponds to Plot No.582/1794 under Khata No.539 (Annexure-1).
The case of the petitioner is that, one Biranchi Narayan Mishra was allotted for an area of Ac.2.00 decimals from Sabik Plot No.582 in Mouza-Patharagadia under Chandaka Police Station in the district of Khurda as per W.L. Case No.470/1979 and since the date of allotment of the said land through W.L. Case No.470/1979, the said allottee Biranchi WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 2 of 16 Narayan Mishra was in possession over the same. The R.o.R thereof was prepared in the name of Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per Khata No.539, Plot No.582/1794 for an area of Ac.2.00 decimals (as per Annexure-1).
The said Biranchi Narayan Mishra was paying rent for the same and he was obtaining the rent receipts thereof. Thereafter, Biranchi Narayan Mishra sold the case land i.e. for an area of Ac.0.0550 decimals of land out of Ac.2.00 decimals from plot No.582/1794 under Khata No.539 to the petitioner by executing and registering a sale deed vide sale deed No.2121 dated 19.05.2000 as per Annexure-3 and delivered possession thereof and since then, the petitioner possessed the said case land i.e. Ac.0.0550 decimals out of Ac.2.00 decimals of plot No.582/1794.
Thereafter, surprisingly, in a suo moto Lease Revision i.e. Lease Revision Case No.149/1981, the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled to the lease of the case land, which was granted in W.L. Case No.470/1979 as per order dated 23.07.1990, to which, the petitioner challenged, by filing the writ petition vide OJC No.526/1998. WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
That writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court and the Order dated 23.07.1990 passed by the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar in the suo moto Lease Revision Case No.149/1981 was quashed as per order dated 02.02.1998 passed in OJC No.526/1998 and the matter was remitted back for its fresh disposal. Then, after hearing, the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar confirmed the lease granted in favour of Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per Order dated 31.03.1999 passed in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
3. During settlement operation, the settlement authorities recorded the case land illegally under Khata No.2239 Plot No.2001 Ac.0.055 decimals indicating/reflecting erroneously to its Kisam as Chhota Jungle. In fact, the case land was/is under the possession of the petitioner having its Kisam as Baje Phasala-3, as reflected in the R.o.R vide Khata No.539 (Annexure-1). For which, the recording of the case land by the settlement authorities in the name of the Government ignoring the settlement of the same in W.L. Case No.470/1979 in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and confirmation of the same on dated 31.03.1999 by the A.D.M. Bhubaneswar on the WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 4 of 16 basis of the order passed on dated 02.02.1998 in OJC No.526 of 1998 is baseless.
For which, without getting any way, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) for preparation of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of the petitioner correcting the same from the name of the Government and also correcting the Kisam thereof from Chotta Jungle to Bajefasal 3 as it was in the previous R.o.R vide Annexure-1 on the ground that, the settlement authorities had no power or jurisdiction to record the case land in the name of the Government and also to change the Kisam thereof overriding/ignoring the confirmation of the settlement of the case land in the name of the vendor of the petitioner in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
5. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is that, WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 5 of 16 I. Whether the preparation of the R.o.R of the case land vide Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550 decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government by the Settlement Authorities in spite of the confirmation of the order of settlement of the case land passed in W.L. Case No.470/1979 by the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar on dated 31.03.1999 ignoring the R.o.R of the same vide Annexure-1 under Khata No.539 plot No.582/1794 in the name of the vendor of the petitioner was lawful?
II. Whether after final publication of the Hal R.o.R of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550 decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government, the Writ Court has power to direct the Tahasildar for recording case land in the name of the petitioner quashing the recording of the same in the name of the Government even in absence of approach of the petitioner to the Revisional Authority under Section 15 (b) of the O.S & S. Act, 1958?
6. In order to have the just decision of this Writ Petition, the above two points fixed for determination are required to be WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 6 of 16 discussed and analyzed one after another serially and chronologically hereunder:
7. So far as the first point i.e. Whether the preparation of the R.o.R of the case land vide Plot No.2001 Ac.0.0550 decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government by the Settlement Authorities in spite of the confirmation of the order of settlement of the case land passed in W.L. Case No.470/1979 by the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar on dated 31.03.1999 ignoring the R.o.R of the same vide Annexure- 1 under Khata No.539 plot No.582/1794 in the name of the vendor of the petitioner was lawful is concerned,
8. "It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the case land was allotted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Biranchi Narayan Mishra in W.L. Case No.470/1979.
The R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per Khata No.539, plot No.582/1794 as per Annexure-1.
Thereafter, the said Biranchi Narayan Mishra sold the case land to the petitioner through R.S.D. dated 19.05.2000 as per Annexure-3.
The A.D.M, Bhubaneswar cancelled to the order of settlement of the case land in W.L. Case No.470/1979 as per Order dated 23.07.1990. The said Order dated 23.07.1990 of WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 7 of 16 the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar was quashed by this Court as per order dated 02.02.1998 passed in OJC No.526/1998 and remitted back the said matter for its fresh disposal by the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar. Then, the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar confirmed the lease granted in favour of Biranchi Narayan Mishra as per order dated 31.03.1999 passed in W.L. Case No.470/1979 and the said order of confirmation of settlement of the case land passed on dated 31.03.1999 by the A.D.M, Bhubaneswar has already been reached in its finality due to non-challenge to the same either by the State/Government or by anybody else as yet."
When the case land was settled in the name of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Biranchi Narayan Mishra in W.L. Case No.470/1979 as per Odisha Government Land Settlement Act and the R.o.R thereof was prepared in the name of the vendor of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 as per the Order of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the said order of settlement of the case land in the name of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Biranchi Narayan Mishra has not been cancelled as yet by any competent authority, then, at this juncture, the settlement authorities had no power or jurisdiction under law for recording the case land in the name of the Government WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 8 of 16 superseding the order of confirmation of settlement of the case land made under the OGLS Act in W.L. Case No.470/1979 in favour of the vendor of the petitioner.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In a case between Shri Jadu Bhoi & Shri Padma Bhoi Vs. State of Orissa reported in JBR (XV) Part IV Page 50 that, unless the lease is cancelled, the land should be recorded in the name of the petitioner i.e. in whose name the land was allotted.
(II) In a case between Mrs. Sneha Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.18936 of 2013 on dated 20.08.2013 (DB) that, the Settlement Authorities has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the revisional authority in a proceeding under the OGLS Act regarding lease of Government land.
(III) In the cases between Nilendri Mohanty Vs. State decided in WP(C) No.8402 of 2014 on dated 04.07.2014 (DB), Kamala Basini Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa decided in WP(C) No.8237 of 2014 on dated 04.07.2014 (DB), Kapaleswar Firms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.11165 of 2014 on dated 08.07.2014 (DB) and Tridev Kodamasingh Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.4596 of 2014 on dated 27.10.2014 (DB) that, the leases granted either under the OGLS Act or under any other appropriate law, unless and until the said leases are set aside or declared invalid by the competent WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 9 of 16 authority under the appropriate statute, the leases cannot be said to be invalid.
Unless and until a lease is either set aside or leasehold lands are resumed by the order of the competent authority, the Settlement Authorities are bound by the lease orders and have no jurisdiction to question the validity of the lease concerned.
(IV) In a case between Padmanav Prusty Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.12776 of 2014 on dated 06.04.2018 (DB) that, it was none of the business of the Assistant Settlement Officer to go into the question of correctness of lease and direct to change the draft record. Because, the authority under the OGLS Act, lease principle or Government Grants Act under which there are hierarchy of authorities to take cognizance of any irregularity and illegality and the said authority can pass the order of cancellation under the concerned statute.
The Settlement Officer is not authorized to encroach upon the authority as prescribed under other revenue laws to behave like appellate authority to cancel the lease. For which, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer is without jurisdiction and wholly erroneous.
(V) In a case between Narottam Rath Vs. State of Odisha and Another decided in WP(C) No.1608 of 2014 on dated 02.01.2023 (DB) that, the ASOs exercised 'suo motu powers' to override the orders of the ADM under the OGLS Act in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioners and refused to record their names in the ROR WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 10 of 16 despite there being no objections to the draft publication of the ROR.
ASO cannot declare any order under OLGS Act as an illegal.
Such action of the ASO is illegal and without jurisdiction. Because, the ASO has no jurisdiction to pass any order touching the OGLS Act. So, his order for recording the case land in the name of the Government is held as without jurisdiction, for which, the said order of ASO is held as void and non-est in the eye of law. (VI) In a case between Ranjit Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided in WP(C) No.5876 of 2014 on dated 22.09.2025 that, there is no provision under the OS&S Act, 1958 empowering the Authorities created under OS&S Act, 1958 to cancel a lease granted under the OGLS Act.
So, by ignoring the order passed by the authorities under the OLGS Act, the ASO acted without jurisidiction in directing to record the case land in favour of the State. For which, the order of the settlement authorities for recording of the case land in the name of the State is void. Therefore, relegating the Petitioner to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958 will serve no purpose and thereby the Petitioner will be further harassed in facing unnecessary litigations.
Since, the settlement proceeding has already been over and the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is the custodian of the revenue records together with the fact that, the concerned Tahasildar has the power under Rule 34 of Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 to correct the entries in the WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 11 of 16 ROR pursuant to the direction of a Court, for which, it is directed that, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall issue ROR of the case land in favour of the Petitioner, if moved by the Petitioner, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. (VII) In a case between Lily Nanda Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2018(I)OLR 559 that, when the Settlement Authorities conveniently avoided the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act ignoring the same, which was not permissible under law, and when the impugned orders have, in effect, resulted in cancelling the lease granted in favour of the beneficiary, which was not within the domain of the settlement authorities, then, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and the same are void, illegal and non- est in the eye of law.
(VIII) In a case between Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.8774 of 2019 on dated 18.06.2021 that, when, Settlement Authorities has passed the orders without recognizing the settlement of the land under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act and when the authorities under the OS&S Act, 1958 cannot sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act, then, it is held that, the Settlement Authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and as such, the final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 pursuant to the void orders is not sustainable under law.
9. Herein this matter at hand, when indirectly the settlement authorities have ignored/superseded the order of WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 12 of 16 confirmation of the settlement of the case land under OGLS Act in W.L. Case No.470/1979 on the basis of the order passed by the High Court in OJC No.526/1998, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government is void and non-est in the eye of law and the said recording of the case land and publication of the Hal R.o.R under Section 12-B of the OS&S Act, 1958 in respect of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government is not sustainable under law.
10. So far as the 2nd point i.e. Whether after final publication of the Hal R.o.R of the case land vide Hal Plot No.2001 Ac.0.550 decimals with Kisam Chhota Jungle under Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government, the Writ Court has power to direct the Tahasildar for recording the case land in the name of the petitioner quashing the recording the same in the name of the Government even in absence of approach of the petitioner to the WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 13 of 16 Revisional Authority under Section 15 (b) of the O.S & S. Act, 1958 is concerned:
As per the amendment of the Rule 34 of the OS&S Rules, 1962 and due to insertion of Clause (g) into the said rule 34 of the OS&S Rules, 1962 on the basis of the Notification No.4773 dated 12.11.2025 of the R & DM Department of the Government of Odisha, all the Tahasildars of the entire State are empowered/authorized under law for correction of the finally published R.o.R of the case land on the basis of the registered transfer deed executed even prior to the publication of the final R.o.R through initiation of Mutation Cases.
Here in this matter at hand, when the registered sale deed vide Annexure-3 is in favour of the petitioner in respect of the case land and the said Annexure-3 was executed by his vendor Biranchi Narayan Mishra in favour of the petitioner on dated 19.05.2000, which was prior to the final publication of the Hal R.o.R of the case land in the name of the Government by the settlement authorities and when as per the discussions and observations made in the forgoing Point No.1, it has already been held that, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R of the WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 14 of 16 case land in respect of Hal Plot No.2001 under Hal Khata No.2239 in the name of the Government by the Settlement Authorities is void and non-est in the eye of law, then, at this juncture, in view of the findings and observations made in the forgoing point No.1 as well as aforesaid Notification No.4773 dated 12.11.2025 of the R & DM Department of the Government of Odisha and insertion of Clause (g) into the Rule 34 of the OS&S Rules, 1962, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is authorized under law for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of the Government to the name of the petitioner through initiation of a Mutation Case on the basis of the Registered transfer deed vide Annexure-3 of the year 2000 in favour of the petitioner even in absence of approach to the Revisional Authority under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958.
11. On the basis of the findings and observations made in the aforesaid Point No.1 and 2, it can be directed to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.2) for preparation of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of the petitioner correcting the same from the name of the Government as well WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 15 of 16 as correcting the Kisam thereof from Chhota Jungle to its existing status as it was earlier in the previous R.o.R under Khata No.539 Plot No.582/1794 vide Annexure-1.
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.
14. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.2) is directed for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of the Government to the name of the petitioner and to change the Kisam thereof from Chhota Jungle to Baje Phasala 3 through initiation of a Mutation Case on the basis of production of the certified copy of this Judgment before the Opp. Party No.2 and to dispose of the said Mutation Case finally within one month from the date of its registration.
15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
Signature High
NotCourt of Orissa, Cuttack
Verified
The 15 .01. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Digitally Signed Sr. Stenographer
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 16-Jan-2026 19:26:14
WP(C) No.37075 of 2025 Page 16 of 16