The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8247 of 2025 Rajiv Narula ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate. State of Odisha and others -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. Mr. Goutam Tripathy, AGA CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 09.04.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Goutam Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The petitioner 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: 10-Apr-2025 19:39:12 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the 0pp. Parties, more particularly the 0pp.Party No.5 i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental functioning at Colony, Bhubaneswar Jobra, office of Major Settlement, Page 1 of 6 Cuttack to show cause as to why the order dated 05.10.2020 passed in Misc. Case No.208 of 2018, so far it relates to sending the matter to the 0pp. Party No.3 to record the disputed land in instead of favour of the Petitioner recording himself, shall not be set aside/quashed, and further as to why he shall not be directed to record the disputed land in favour of the Petitioner by himself forthwith pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.12732 of 2014, And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may make the said rule absolute by quashing/setting aside the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the Opp. Party No.5 in Misc. Case No.208 of 2018 , so far it relates to sending the matter to the Opp. Party No.3 to record the disputed land in favour of the Petitioner instead of recording himself, and further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.5 to record the disputed land in forthwith favour of pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.12732 of 2014.” the Petitioner In the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 vide Annexure-2, the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, opp. party no.5 has held that the final RoR Page 2 of 6 and maps in respect of Mouza-Ghatikia have already been made and as per statute, the Asst. Settlement Officer is “functus officio” after final publication of RoRs and that maps and records are with Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. 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 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 Page 3 of 6 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 that the land belongs to the Government, are hereby set aside; (ii) The corresponding orders by the Appellate Authorities affirming such orders of the ASOs are also hereby set aside; (iii) A direction is issued to the ASOs to now proceed to record the names of the respective Petitioners concerning the land in question in their names in the ROR, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. Page 4 of 6 (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 has got alternative remedy, after arguing for some time, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail such remedy in accordance with law. Page 5 of 6 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Judge (S.K. Sahoo) Judge Sipun/ Himansu (Chittaranjan Dash) Page 6 of 6