The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Narendra Bhoe @ Jhankar …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr.Advocate. Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :16.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.01.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the corrected R.o.Rs (Annexure-3 & 4) directing the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) to restore the original recordings in respect of the same as it were in the R.o.Rs vide Annexure-1 & 2. 2. The factual backgrounds of the writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the R.o.Rs vide Annexure-3 & 4 were quashed by this Hon’ble Courts as per final orders passed on dated W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 08.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No.14540 of 2015 and 14541 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, he (petitioner) approached the Tahasildar, Sambalpur by filing an application/petition on dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure-5) for restoration of the recordings thereof as it were in Annexure-1 & 2, but, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) refused to register such application/petition filed on dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure-5) by the petitioner on the ground that, there was no specific direction in the final orders passed in the above writ petition Nos.W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 for restoration of the recordings as it were in Annexure-1 & 2. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Hon’ble Courts praying for the above directions. 3. After issuance of notice from this Hon’ble Courts, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) hurriedly registered the said petition dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure-5) of the petitioner as Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024, but, rejected the same though an undated order (Annexure- 5A) assigning the reasons that, R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 is pending before learned District Judge, Sambalpur in respect of the same properties. 4. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 5. The final order was passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 on dated 08.12.2023 by this Hon’ble Courts taking into account the pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 in the Court of learned District Judge, W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 Sambalpur in respect of the same properties had allowed both the said writ petitions filed by the petitioner after setting aside the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Sambalpur clarifying in paragraph Nos.5 & 9 of the said order that, “Petitioner had filed Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Odisha Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act before the Tahasildar for settlement of property. The Tahasildar in his order dated 25.08.2010 settled half of the land i.e. measuring Ac.4.110 decimal in favour of the petitioner and other half Ac.4.110 decimal was directed to be recorded in favour of the deity. Against the said order of the Tahasildar, the opposite party No.1 approached the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub-Collector by filing Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010. After hearing the said Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010, as per final order dated 27.07.2012 passed in that Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010, the sub-Collector upheld the order passed by the OEA Collector-cum-Tahasildar in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009. The said order of the Appellate Authority passed in OEA Appeal No.5 of 2010 has attained finality in absence of further challenge to the same. As per the final order passed by the Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1 of 2009 and confirmation to the same by the Sub-Collector in OEA Appeal No.5 of 2010, there was direction to record the case land in favour of the petitioner as well as deity in equal share.” Inspite of the said findings of the Hon’ble Courts in Paragraph Nos.5 & 9 of the final order passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 after taking into account the pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) rejected the Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 of the petitioner as per Annexure-5A only on the sole ground i.e. for the pendency of the R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 without taking into account to the above observations made by this Hon’ble Courts as W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 per final order dated 08.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015. 6. It is the settled propositions of law that, order passed by the statutory authorities under OEA Act, cannot be ignored by the Revenue Authorities at the time of making correction of records of land. The above propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Rama Devi (dead), after her, her legal heirs Ch. Dhananjay Mohapatra and others Vrs. Government of Orissa, represented through its Secretary to G.A. Department and others reported in 2014 (1) O.J.R. (509), “order passed by the statutory authority under the O.E.A. Act cannot be ignored as without jurisdiction by an authority under the O.S.S. Act. In a case between Prafulla Chandra Muduli and (ii) others Vrs State of Odisha and others reported in 2005 (Supp.) OLR 950, “an order passed under one statute by a superior authority can under no stretch of imagination be varied or held to be without jurisdiction by an authority exercising power under another independent statute. (Para 8).” In a case between Sanatan Acharya Vrs. (iii) Tahasildar, Panposh & others reported in 2016 (2) O.J.R. (462), “Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the superior court with regard to entry in the ROR. He has no authority to sit over the order of Higher Authority.” 7. Here in this writ at hand, when as per the reflections made in paragraph Nos.5 & 9 of the final order dated 08.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.14540 & 14541 of 2015 for joint recording of the properties
Decision
involved in the writ petitions in favour of the petitioner and deity on the basis of order passed in Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010 confirming to W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 the final order in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 has already been reached in its finality without being challenged to the same, then at this juncture, in view of the said direction, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) should have recorded the properties involved in the writ petition deleting the recordings thereof in Annexure-3 & 4. For which, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) should not have rejected the Revenue Case No.1 of 2024 as per Annexure-5A only on the ground of pendency of R.F.A. No.9 of 2015. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this writ at hand, it is held that, the undated order passed by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) vide Annexure-5A in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 cannot be sustainable under law, because, it was the duty of the Revenue Officer for passing the order in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 for recording of the properties involved in the writ petition on the basis of final order passed in Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010, but, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur has not done so. For which, the undated order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 vide Annexure-5A by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur cannot be sustainable under law. 8. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The undated order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 (Annexure-5A) by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur is quashed. W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 The matter vide Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 is remitted back to the Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) for deciding the said Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 afresh as per law and to record the properties involved in that Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 on the basis of final order passed in Bebandobasta Case No.1 of 2009 and the confirmation to the same in Bebandobasta Appeal No.5 of 2010 and to make necessary corrections of the names from the RoRs vide Annexure-3 & 4 of this writ petition. 9. The Tahasildar, Sambalpur (opposite party No.3) is directed to dispose of the Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2024 within a period of two months positively from the date of communication of this judgment. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 31.01.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Jan-2025 15:14:23 W.P.(C) No.9367 of 2024 Page 6 of 6