The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4670 of 2025 Niharika Mohanty ..... Petitioner Mr. Tushar Kanta Nayak, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Orissa 2. Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar 3. Asst. Settlement Officer, Khurda 4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar .....
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard. The petitioner, Niharika Mohanty has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-May-2025 18:26:05 “The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordship’s would graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records Page 1 of 6 and after hearing the parties allow the same and issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari/ Mandamus or any other or further writ/writs direction/directions directing quashing the impugned order passed in Rent Case No.16630/4564 of 2013 by Asst. Settlement officer, Rental Colony Bhubaneswar at Annexure-1 and further direct the Settlement Authority to record the suit land in favour of the petitioner in compliance to the order in passed by the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar Revision Case for the interest of justice.” The impugned order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, opp. party no.3 in Rent Case No.16630/4564 of 2013 vide Annexure-1 reads as under:- “This case is taken up today. Notice duly served on the parties. The suit land is originally belongs to Govt. as per the ROR finally published during the year 1962. During the Khanpuri stage, the ROR prepared in the name of OP as per his possession and lease granted to him/his vendor. But the trace map attached to the lease case record was not land to know whether examined possessed by the OP has actually been leased out. the Secondly, it is seen that a lot of frauds have been made in the Tahasil level in respect of the lease cases for which crime branch enquiry and CBI enquiry are going on. Recently a fraud was come to the notice of Page 2 of 6 Government that the lease was sanctioned in the year 1966 but in the form which was printed out by Government press in the year 1969. The Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in their order dated 29.01.1966 in OJC No.9449 of 1993 have also directed for scrutiny of each lease case by an officer in the rank of Secretary. No documents have been filed by any party proving that the suit land of this present case has been scrutinized once the ROR prepared and finally published, it will not be possible to detect the fraud. The OP has scope to record the suit land in his favour in the next stage of operation, if his lease is genuine. Hence, the suit land at present recorded in the name of Govt. as per the sabik ROR”. Final publication of record-of-rights is made by the Asst. Settlement Officer under section 12-B of the Odisha Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (hereafter, “1958 Act”). Such publication shall be the conclusive evidence that the record has been duly made under Chapter-III of 1958 Act. Section 15 (a) of 1958 Act empowers the Board of Revenue to direct on its own motion the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights, at any time after the date of final publication under section 12-B of the 1958 Act. Similarly, in view of section 15(b), an application being made within one year from the date of final publication under section 12-B, the Board of Revenue can direct the revision of record-of-rights or any Page 3 of 6 portion thereof within the said period of one year or thereafter and in any of the cases, either under section 15(a) or 15(b) of 1958 Act, the direction can be given only after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter. Similarly, in case of settlement of rent as per Chapter-IV of 1958 Act after incorporation of settled rent in the record-of-rights and final publication thereof is made by the Asst. Settlement Officer under section 23 of 1958 Act, the Board of Revenue by invoking its power of revision under section 25 of the said Act either of its own motion or on an application made within one year from the date of final publication can direct the revision of the rent so settled after providing reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to appear and heard in the matter. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Narottam Rath -Vrs.- State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014 and batch of cases, the Division Bench of this Court has made the following directions:- “(i) The impugned orders of the ASOs declining to accept the request of the Petitioners for recording of their names in the ROR in respect of the lands in question on the ground the the Government, are hereby set aside; land belongs that to (ii) The corresponding orders by the Appellate Authorities affirming such orders of the ASOs are also hereby set aside; Page 4 of 6 to record the names of (iii) A direction is issued to the ASOs to now proceed the respective Petitioners concerning the land in question in their names in the ROR, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. (iv) Where the land in question stands recorded in the final published RoR in the name of the Government that entry will stand cancelled by virtue of this order and the ASO will proceed to record it in favour of the respective Petitioners.” The State of Odisha challenged such orders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. -Vrs.- Deepak Kumar Samantaray in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26551 of 2023 with a batch of cases vide order dated 17.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions of section 12 of the 1958 Act prior to the finalization of the record of rights or at a subsequent stage, the High Court has to consider whether the aggrieved party has exhausted the remedies as provided under section 12-A and/or section 15(b) of the 1958 Act and therefore, all such matters were remitted to this Court for consideration afresh which is to be decided separately. In view of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since against the impugned order, the petitioner Page 5 of 6 has got alternative remedy, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail such remedy in accordance with law. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Judge (S.K. Sahoo) Judge Sipun (S.S. Mishra) Page 6 of 6