Kalinga Institute Of Social Sciences vs State Of Odisha And Others on 19 September, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Kalinga Institute Of Social Sciences vs State Of Odisha And Others on 19 September, 2022

02. 1. The challenge in the present writ appeals is to separate orders dated 3rd September, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 25756, 25760, 25766 and 25768 of 2021 on the ground that the Appellant had an efficacious statutory remedy to assail the correctness of the entries made in the final Record of Rights (RoR) in respect of the case land under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act).

2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Gautam Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State.

Page 1 of 6

3. The background facts are that the Appellant, an educational institution, purchased the lands in question under Registered Sale Deeds (RSDs) from the Kalinga Relief & Charitable Trust (KRCT) on 6th August, 2013. The Appellant states that it has been possession of the lands in question since then.

4. The Appellant's vendor, i.e., the KRCT had, in turn, purchased the lands in question from the legal representatives (LRs) of one Padmanav Mishra in whose favour the lands in question had been settled way back in 1971 by the State in W.L.L. Case No.207 of 1971. Initially, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Bhubaneswar had exercised suo motu powers under Section 7(A)(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act), cancelling the lease. That order was set aside by this Court in OJC No.3498 of 1995 and the matter was remitted to the ADM, Bhubaneswar for a fresh adjudication. On remand, by an order dated 22nd June 2006, the ADM confirmed the lease and directed that the RoR in respect of the land would be recorded in the names of the LRs of late Padmanav Mishra, who had died by then. In 2008 itself the RoR was published in favour of the LRs of Padmanav Mishra. In 2009 Form-K was issued by the Tahasildar to the Settlement Authorities confirming conversion of the land to Gharabari status. It is thereafter that the land in question was sold by the LRs of Padmanav Mishra in favour of KRCT, the vendor of the present Appellant.

Page 2 of 6

5. When the settlement operations commenced by a notification dated 22nd July 1995, an enquiry was conducted in Rent Case No.10358 of 2013. The Appellant has annexed to the present writ appeal as Annexure-7 a copy of an undated order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) in Rent Case No.10358-860 of 2013 in which it was held: "although the Petitioner produced various legal documents for recording of the suit property in his favour, the property is one being lease land and situated in the periphery city of Bhubaneswar, the prayer of the Petitioner is rejected. Hence, it is ordered to record the said land in Government Khata." In effect, therefore, the ASO refused to recognize the grant of lease of the said land in favour of the predecessors in interest of the Appellant.

6. The above undated order of the ASO was challenged by the Appellant by filing W.P.(C) No.23907 of 2014 and three other writ petitions in this Court in which interim orders protecting the possession of the Appellant were passed by the learned Single Judge on 11th December, 2014.

7. There was another large batch of writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C) 8774 of 2019 etc. where a similar issue was involved concerning the orders passed by the ASO and the Appellate Authority under the OSS Act purportedly refusing to recognize the lease settled under the OGLS Act, 1962. That batch of writ petitions was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a detailed judgment dated 18th June, 2021 setting aside the orders passed by the ASO and the Appellate Authority under Sections 12 and 12-B of the OSS Act respectively Page 3 of 6 and remanding the matters to the ASO for a fresh hearing after hearing the objections of the vendees of the properties to the draft RoR in those matters.

8. Mr. Mukherji, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the present Appellants states that in view of the above judgment dated 18th June 2021, the Appellant here sought to withdraw the writ petitions filed by it in 2014 with liberty to approach the Settlement Authority to prepare a fresh RoR after verifying the documents. The writ petitions were dismissed by this Court as withdrawn with the above liberty by an order dated 9th August, 2021.

9. Pursuant to the withdrawal of the writ petitions, the Appellant filed fresh objections before the ASO, which according to the Appellant was refused to be entertained by the ASO, resulting in the Appellant again coming before the learned Single Judge with a fresh set of writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 25756, 25760, 25766 and 25768 of 2021.

10. By the impugned orders dated 3rd September, 2021, the learned Single Judge has sought to distinguish the writ petitions which were disposed of earlier by the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 18th June, 2021 from the cases on hand on the ground that in the present cases the Appellant was unable to place materials on record before the learned Single Judge to show that it had filed any objections to the draft RoR published under the OSS Act.

Page 4 of 6

11. The above narration of the facts reveals that the Appellant had indeed gone before the ASO to produce the RSDs under which it had purchased the lands from its vendee i.e. KRCT and had requested for recording of the RoR in its name and that had been rejected by the undated order of the ASO. For some reason, the said order which was enclosed with the earlier round of writ petitions filed in 2014 by the Appellant was not placed by it before the learned Single Judge in the second round of writ petitions filed in which the impugned order was passed. This is what led the learned Single Judge to proceed on the basis that there was no material to show that the Appellant had filed objections to the draft RoR. It is for the same reason that the learned Single Judge relegated the Appellant to the statutory remedy of a revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act.

12. Now, it is clear that the case of the Appellant is no different from the case of the other writ Petitioners in whose writ petitions, the Judgment dated 18th June, 2021 was delivered by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Appellant would also, therefore, be entitled to the same relief as was granted to those Petitioners viz., of going back before the ASO for a fresh adjudication on the objections filed to the draft RoR.

13. At this stage, Mr. Mukherji produces before the Court a set of instructions issued by the Board of Revenue, Odisha to the effect that in such cases where under orders of the High Court Page 5 of 6 proceedings had been remanded to the ASO, the proceedings should now be conducted by the Tahasildar.

14. In that view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge, this Court issues the following directions:

(i) The undated orders of the ASO, declining the Appellant's request for recording of the RoR in its name are hereby set aside.

(ii) The final RoR published in respect of the lands in question are accordingly hereby set aside.

(iii) The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar will consider afresh the Appellant's objections to the draft RoRs and, after hearing the State, and considering he documents that may be placed by it before him, pass appropriate orders on the Appellant's objections to the draft RoR in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

15. The writ appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge S. Behera Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court