The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9985 of 2014 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Rabindranath Parida (dead) and others -versus- …. Petitioners State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners - Mr. N. K. Sahu, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Smt. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel. (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :22.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment :22.08.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (Opposite Party No.2). 2.
Legal Reasoning
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, when during major settlement operation, the case land was recorded under Rakhit Khata as per Page 1 of 10 Annexure-9 in the name of Government of Odisha refusing the prayer of the petitioners for recording the same in their names, then the petitioners filed Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 under Section 15(b) and 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 for recording of the case land in their names stating in their revision petition that, Sitanath Sen and Gourmohan Sen were the ex-intermediaries of the case land and Hadibandhu Hazira was the super land lord thereof. The ex-intermediaries i.e. Sitanath Sen and Gourmohan Sen transferred the case land in favour of one Gajendra Narayan Panda by executing and registering a lease deed on dated 26.05.1942 (Annexure-2) and inducted him as a permanent tenant over the case land and as such, Gajendra Narayan Panda acquired right of occupancy over the case land and he (Gajendra Narayan Panda) sold the same to one Mahendranath Patra through registered sale deed No.3287 dated 27.05.1942. Thereafter, on the basis of the subsequent sales of the case land chronologically, the case land was purchased by the predecessors of the petitioners in the year 1966 through sale deeds. But, when during settlement operation, the settlement authorities did not record the case land in the name of the petitioners, but recorded the same in the name of Government under Rakhit Khata as per Annexure-9, then the petitioners challenged the same by filing Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of Page 2 of 10 1988 under Sections 15(b) and 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 praying for recording the case land in their names. After hearing, the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) dismissed to the said Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 of the petitioners on dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) assigning the reasons that, “the land in question has been transferred prior to 01.01.1946, solely with the object of defeating the provisions of the O.E.A. Act or to claim higher compensation, hence provisions of Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act empowers the Collector to set aside such transfer and to take possession of the land from such person. Keeping in view these provisions of the O.E.A. Act, the petitioners have never approached the OEA Collector for settlement of rent, though the land in question was Anabadi land from the time of sale transaction dated 26.05.1946 by the so called ex-intermediaries. For which, the settlement authorities have rightly recorded the case land under Rakhit Khata No.568. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Remuna is directed to delete the illegal possession notes from the remarks columns of Rakhita Khata No.568. So, the revision petition filed by the petitioners being devoid of any merit is dismissed.” 3. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2), the petitioners challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Page 3 of 10 India, 1950 praying for quashing that final order (Annexure-11) passed in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988. 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ASC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3). 5. It appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-11 passed by the O.P. No.2 that, the Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 under Section 15(b) & 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed only on the sole ground that, “the case land was transferred prior to 01.01.1946 with the object of defeating the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 or to claim higher compensation.” 6. Now it will be seen, “whether the aforesaid observations made by O.P. No.2 in dismissing the Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 of the petitioners applying the provisions of Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 is sustainable under law?” 7. As per Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951, the Collector is invested with the powers in setting aside any settlement, lease or transfer, only when the Collector is satisfied after making due enquiry that, the settlement, lease or transfer of the concerned case land was made with an object of defeating any provisions of the Act (O.E.A. Act) or for obtaining higher compensation thereunder. 8. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 4 of 10 (i) In a case between Collector of Puri, Representing the State of Orissa Vrs. Budhinath Samantray and another reported in 35 (1969) CLT 552 & (35) ILR 1969 CTC 716 that; the Collector under Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act gets jurisdiction to set aside any settlement or lease made by the proprietor of an estate, if he is satisfied that, the same had been made with the object of defeating any of the provisions of the Act or determining higher compensation thereunder. (Para 5) (ii) In a case between Bijaya Gantayat and others Vrs. The Collector, Jajpur and others reported in 2016 (2) O.J.R. (576) that; where the Collector is satisfied that settlement, lease or transfer made with the object of defeating any provisions of the Act or obtaining higher compensation thereunder, he has power to make enquiries and may set aside such settlement, lease or transfer. 9. The word i.e. Collector has been defined in Section 2(d) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951. As per Section 2(d) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951:- “Collector” includes any Officer appointed by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act i.e. under the O.E.A. Act. 10. Rule 4 of the O.E.A. Rule, 1952 provides that, “the notice under Clause (i) of Section 5 shall be in Form B during enquiry under Section 5(i) by the Collector under the O.E.A. Act as per Section 2(d).” 11. Section 9(1) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 provides that, “an appeal against any order of the Collector under Section 5(i) proviso shall be preferred within 60 days of such order to the Collector of the District who shall dispose of the appeal according to the same procedure as is preferred for disposal of such appeal by the Board of Revenue.” Page 5 of 10 12. As per explanation of Section 9 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951, the Collector of the District referred to in the proviso shall for the purpose of the said Section include the Addl. Magistrate of the District. 13. It is very fundamental in law that, the Settlement Authority lacks its jurisdiction to enter into the jurisdiction of the O.E.A. Collector as defined in Section 2(d) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951. Because, scope, power and jurisdiction of the Settlement Authority under the O.S.S. Act, 1958 including the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement like O.P. No.2 and the scope, power and jurisdiction of the authorities under the O.E.A. Act, 1951 including the Appellate Authority thereof on hierarchy basis are fully different and separate. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Prafulla Chandra Muduli Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2005 (Supp.) OLR 950; a Settlement Officer cannot sit in appeal and nullify an order passed by the O.E.A. Collector. (Para 7) (ii)
Legal Reasoning
In a case between Smt. Lily Nanda and two others Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2018 (I) OLR 559; any recording made pursuant to the O.E.A. Act, O.P.L.E. Act and O.G.L.S. Act cannot be set at naught by the Survey and Settlement authorities. (Para 8) 14. When, the provisions of law envisaged in Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 provide that, the Collector under Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 gets jurisdiction to set aside any settlement, lease or transfer made by the proprietary of the estate, if he is satisfied after Page 6 of 10 making enquiries and issuance of the notice to the aggrieved persons (in whose favour deed and conveyance exists) and satisfied that, the said transfer was made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act i.e. O.E.A. Act or to get the higher compensation thereunder. But, here in this matter at hand, when no material or document was placed before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) at the time of deciding the revision under Sections 15(b) & 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 about the setting aside of the so called deeds in question in respect of the case land in favour of the vendors of the petitioners as well as the petitioners by the Collector under the O.E.A. Act, 1951 through an enquiry as per Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 and when O.P. No.2 (Addl. Commissioner, Settlement) being an authority under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 has no jurisdiction to give any observations as a Collector under Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 stating that, the transfer of the case land was made in favour of the vendors of the petitioners with the object of defeating the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 or to claim higher compensation thereunder and when O.P. No.2 being the authorities under the Orissa Survey Settlement Act, 1958 has indirectly set aside all the sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners including the predecessors of the petitioners in respect of the case land through the impugned order, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the Page 7 of 10 above decisions, it is held that, the impugned order vide Annexure-11 passed by O.P. No.2 is not inconformity with the law. Because, the Authority under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 i.e. O.P. No.2 has no jurisdiction to give any findings either directly or indirectly that, the sale deed is void and no title has been passed in favour of the vendees of the sale deeds including the petitioners only for the reasons that, the Settlement Authority like O.P. No.2 has no jurisdiction or authority to decide the disputed question of law, whether the sale deed is subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Section 54 of the T.P. Act, 1882 and the same can only be thrashed out in proper Court of law, but not by the authorities under Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Smt. Basanti Sahoo Vrs. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in 2012 (II) OLR 595; Member, Board of Revenue under Orissa Survey & Settlement Act has no jurisdiction to give finding that, the sale deed is a void document and no title was passed in favour of the vendee. (ii) In a case between Shyam Sundar Sahoo (dead) and after him, Parbati Sahoo and others Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2008 (II) OLR 278; the validity of any sale deed is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Section 54 of the T.P. Act, which can be thrashed out in proper Court of law. (iii) In a case between Cuttack Municipal Corporation Vrs. Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement and others reported in 2010 (Suppl.-II) OLR 151; the Settlement Authorities have no Page 8 of 10 jurisdiction or authority to decide the disputed questions of title. (Para 13) 15. Here in this matter at hand, when the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) being an authority under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 has given its findings in the impugned order vide Annexure-11 as an O.E.A. Collector under Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 without any enquiry under Section 5(i) of the said Act by the OEA Collector and when O.P. No.2 has indirectly set aside all the sale deeds in respect of the case land in favour of the vendors of the petitioners as well as in favour of the petitioners in respect of the case land through the impugned order vide Annexure-11 and when O.P. No.2 being an authority under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 lacks its jurisdiction to give any finding touching the title in the sale deeds, then at this juncture, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the impugned order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed by O.P. No.2 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
Decision
16. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed. 17. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed on contest. Page 9 of 10 The impugned order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) is quashed (set aside). The matter vide Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof in full compliance of the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before O.P. No.2. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear on 01.09.2025 before Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the O.P. No.2 as to further proceedings of the said Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988. 18. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 22.08.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:26:17 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 10 of 10