Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 8979 of 2018 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Pratapsen Rout &. Petitioner(s) Member Board of Revenue &. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Susanta Kumar Jethy, Adv. Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-17.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the impugned orders dated 18.05.2012 of the RDC (Central Division) and 26.08.2015 of the Sub-Collector, Athagarh, and to restore the Tahasildar9s settlement order dated 27.08.2001 in Encroachment Case No. 467/2001, thereby protecting the petitioner9s lawful possession over the case land. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The dispute concerns Government land under Khata No. 294, Plot No. 1069 of Mouza Kusupangi, District Cuttack, measuring approximately Ac.1.200. The land was originally recorded as Patra Jungle and later Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 recorded as Taila in the name of the petitioner following proceedings before the Tahasildar, Athagarh. (ii) The Tahasildar, Athagarh, by order dated 27.08.2001 in Encroachment Case No. 467/2001, settled the suit land in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, an ROR was published in his name as Khata No. 265/252, Plot No. 1069/1607. (iii) The petitioner applied for conversion of part of the land to homestead under Section 8(1) of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, and in OLR Case No. 167/2005, was directed to deposit a premium of ¹14,400, which he deposited. (iv) The Revenue Inspector, Nidhipur, had earlier submitted a report in Form-G alleging unauthorized occupation of Government land by the petitioner, leading to initiation of encroachment proceedings. (v) On 30.01.2009, the Additional Tahasildar, Athagarh, filed Encroachment Appeal No. 5 of 2009 before the Sub-Collector, Athagarh, challenging the 2001 settlement order of the Tahasildar. The appeal was filed after obtaining permission from the Collector, Cuttack, in accordance with Government Notification No. S-60/91-56606 dated 21.11.1992 and Collector9s Letter No. 1651 dated 07.06.2008. (vi) The petitioner filed objections in the said appeal, and after hearing, the Sub-Collector, by order dated 26.08.2015, set aside the Tahasildar9s order dated 27.08.2001, directed correction of the ROR to revert the land to Government Khata, and ordered resumption of possession. (vii) During pendency of the said appeal, the Sub-Collector, Athagarh, informed the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, by Letter No. 642 dated 02.02.2009 regarding the alleged irregularities in settlement. The Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 Member, Board of Revenue, in turn, directed the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, to take appropriate action. (viii) Acting on the said direction, the RDC (Central Division), Cuttack, initiated OPLE Suo Motu Revision Case No. 4 of 2010, issued notice to the petitioner, and by order dated 18.05.2012, set aside the Tahasildar9s order dated 27.08.2001, holding the settlement to be irregular and directing eviction from the case land. (ix) Reports on record, including an R.I. enquiry dated 05.01.2009, indicated that the petitioner possessed other land measuring Ac.6.52 and had an annual income of approximately ¹40,000. (x) The petitioner has alleged that several other persons have been granted settlement or conversion of land from the same Khata and Plot to Gharabari category and continue in possession, whereas his case alone was reopened and cancelled. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The suo-motu Encroachment Appeal filed after eight years was barred by limitation and ought to have been dismissed outright. The Sub- Collector acted illegally in entertaining it without condonation of delay and in deciding it ex parte, violating principles of natural justice. (ii) The Sub-Collector committed gross procedural error by writing to the Member, Board of Revenue while the appeal was sub-judice and before deciding it on merits, thereby compromising his judicial independence. (iii) The Member, Board of Revenue, exceeded his authority by directing the RDC to invoke Section 12(3) of the OPLE Act while an appeal was Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 pending. Under Section 12(3), the RDC may intervene only where no appeal or revision lies; therefore, the suo-motu revision was void ab initio and lacked jurisdiction. (iv) The RDC9s order dated 18.05.2012 was passed arbitrarily, without application of mind to records or evidence, and contrary to statutory provisions. It was passed during the pendency of the appeal, resulting in two parallel proceedings for the same cause of action. (v) The authorities acted in collusion and bias under political influence, targeting the petitioner while similarly situated individuals enjoy settled homestead rights from the same Khata and Plot without interference. (vi) The impugned orders dated 18.05.2012 (RDC) and 26.08.2015 (Sub- Collector) are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline, warranting interference by the High Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Decision
The writ petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal in limine, as it raises disputed questions of fact unsuited to writ jurisdiction. (ii) The land is Patra Jungle and hence forest in character; neither settlement nor conversion could be made without prior Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, rendering the Tahasildar9s 27.08.2001 order and subsequent ROR mutation inherently illegal. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (iii) The petitioner was an unauthorized occupier; assertions of possession since 1965 and for over 50 years are unproved and fabricated, with no evidence filed before the original or appellate forums. (iv) The Tahasildar failed to apply judicial mind, conducted inadequate enquiry into the petitioner9s and joint family9s holdings and income, and did not verify village RORs, resulting in an unlawful settlement of valuable Government land. (v) The Encroachment Appeal was filed promptly upon discovery on 30.01.2009, with requisite authorization per the 21.11.1992 Government Notification and the Collector9s 07.06.2008 letter; limitation does not bar an appeal triggered by later discovery of illegality. (vi) The appellate proceedings were not ex parte; both sides were heard, objections were on record, and the Sub-Collector9s 26.08.2015 order lawfully annulled an illegal settlement and directed restoration of records and possession. (vii) The Sub-Collector9s intimation to the Member, Board of Revenue was proper given the Member9s supervisory role; the RDC9s suo motu revision was a valid corrective exercise culminating in the 18.05.2012 order setting aside the Tahasildar9s action and directing eviction. (viii) Conversion to homestead in OLR Case No.167/2005 is void because base title was illegal and Patra Jungle cannot be diverted to non-forest use without mandatory prior approval; all downstream mutations and conversions are consequentially invalid. IV. COURT9S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. Page 5 of 11 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 petitioner, who claims settlement of Government land (Khata No.265/252, Plot No.1069/1607, Patta No.1569) which was originally recorded as Patra Jungle, challenges the order of the Sub-Collector, Athagarh vide Encroachment Appeal No.5 of 2009 dated 26.08.2015 setting aside the Tahasildar9s order dated 27.08.2001 for settlement and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner9s suo motu revision order dated 18.05.2012 passed in OPLE Case No.4 of 2010 cancelling the settlement. The petitioner contends these proceedings were barred by limitation, vitiated by procedural irregularities and bias, whereas the opposite parties contend the writ is not maintainable and the settlement was void as the land was of forest kisam. 7. The Court notes the opposite parties9 objection that this writ petition raises disputed factual questions and therefore should be dismissed. However, the petitioner9s challenge primarily raises questions of law and jurisdiction, e.g., timeliness and authority of the encroachment appeal and revision, and legality of acts on forest land. Now, it is settled that under Article 226, the High Court may review errors of jurisdiction, illegality or procedural infirmity in administrative orders. Where an authority has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or acted without due process, writ of certiorari is permissible. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.1 has held as follows: <The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal 1 AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 477 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding.= 8. The Court is not acting as a finder of disputed facts or re-appreciating evidence, but rather examining whether the impugned actions transgress statutory limits or fundamental legal principles. In this case, issues such as the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, limitation in appellate proceedings, and the concurrent use of revisional powers raise pure questions of law. Thus, the petition is not barred by maintainability. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 9. A central question is the nature of the land. The record and submissions show the suit land was originally recorded as Patra Jungle. It is now well-established in Orissa law that <Patra Jungle= is a category of forest land. In Raj Kumar Dutta v. State of Orissa2 this Court observed that land recorded as 8Patra Jungle9 qualifies as forest land and cannot be diverted for non-forest purposes without prior Central Government approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In that case, the Tahasildar9s settlement of such land was set aside on revision for lack of required approval. The relevant excerpts are produced below: <Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 3(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962 and the type (Kisam) of the land was 8Patra Jungle9, which was not disputed. As the land is a forest land, in view of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 without prior permission the Central Government, the same cannot be used for any non-forest purpose.= from 10. Similarly, here the Tahasildar9s order passed in 2001 for settlement was passed without any Central sanction under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. Section 2 of that Act bars any State authority from directing forest land to be used for non-forest purposes without prior Central Government9s approval. The impugned settlement was made in clear violation of this statutory requirement. 11. Hence, the Tahasildar9s order in the instant case, and all downstream mutations or conversion orders based on it, are void ab initio. The petitioner9s title, if any, is therefore untenable. The conversion to homestead filed under OLR Case No.167/2005 and the subsequent ROR mutation in the petitioner9s name were consequent on the void 2 W.P. (C) No. 5583 of 2004 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 settlement. Without lawful entitlement, those mutations cannot confer rights. 12. The authorities9 contention that the land being forest requires cancellation of the settlement is thus well-founded. The Forest (Conservation) Act is overriding, hence, no purported settlement of forest land can stand without statutory compliance. The petitioner9s failure to obtain or even seek Central approval renders his claimed rights wholly unenforceable. In view of this, any procedural irregularity in the proceedings (while relevant) is overshadowed by the fundamental illegality of the initial transaction. 13. The petitioner9s principal grievance is that the Encroachment Appeal No.5 of 2009, filed by the Additional Tahasildar on 30.01.2009 against the 2001 order, was time-barred by nearly eight years and admitted without condonation. The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act) prescribes that an appeal from the Tahasildar9s order lies to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sub-Collector) and must be filed within thirty days. That time limit is strict: absent any recorded condonation of the 8-year delay, the appeal should have been dismissed as barred. 14. No condonation was shown and it appears the appeal was admitted purely on the basis of the Government9s internal authorization letter of 1992. That Government letter did authorize Tahasildars (with Collector9s sanction) to file departmental appeals, but said nothing about relaxing time limits. The categorical 30-day rule under Section 12(1) of the OPLE Act stands unless relief is expressly granted. In any event, the High Court9s supervisory jurisdiction under Art.226 enables Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 it to correct jurisdictional excess. Admitting an appeal after eight years without explanation was a clear jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal as time-barred. 15. Notwithstanding this, however, the fundamental objection remains that the petitioner’s claimed title was never valid. Even if the appeal had been properly dismissed, the settlement itself was illegal and incapable of perpetuating rights. Thus, this technical irregularity, while significant, does not rescue a void title. 16. The petitioner also alleges bias and collusion, pointing to other persons who were allegedly granted settlement from the same Khata and remain unmolested. However, no evidence was led to show any discriminatory policy or improper motive. If others indeed held similar titles, they too would have done so on the same illegal basis; one unlawful settlement does not legitimize another. In any event, this Court declines to entertain a roving inquiry into comparative cases on vague assertions of political influence. 17. Ultimately, for all the foregoing reasons, the petitioner9s claims founder on a lack of lawful entitlement. The High Court cannot countenance the petitioner9s plea when the statute flatly prohibits the very settlement and conversion on which it is based. There is no dispute that the petitioner9s family was not a recognized forest-dwelling community with rights under any forestry law; rather, this is a plain case of unauthorized occupation of forest land. The authorities were thus duty- bound to correct the record. The Sub-Collector9s order (whether admitted properly or not) and the RDC9s order both aimed at restoring Government khata in accordance with law. Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court finds that the original settlement and consequential conversion and mutations were void for want of prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, that no enforceable right accrued to the petitioner, and that allegations of bias or unequal treatment remain unproved; while the Encroachment Appeal suffered from delay and the suo motu revision by the RDC was jurisdictionally vulnerable during pendency of the appeal, these infirmities do not revive an illegal settlement of forest land, and the corrective steps taken to restore Government khata cannot be interdicted. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, the orders dated 18.05.2012 of the RDC and 26.08.2015 of the Sub-Collector are sustained. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 19. 20. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st Oct. 2025 Page 11 of 11