The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11999 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Chandra Prakash Rath -versus- State of Odisha, represented through of Secretary, Department the Revenue and Disaster Management, Bhubaneswar and others …. …. Petitioner Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : : CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
Legal Reasoning
findings made by this Court in the final order date 23.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 under Annexure-10. 12. When, as per the discussions and observations made above, both the reasons assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order under Annexure-11 for the dismissal of OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8A of the OLR Act of the petitioner have been held as unsustainable under law, then, at this juncture, the final order dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 passed by the Opposite Party No.5 in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 under Annexure-10) cannot be sustainable under law. 13. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order under Annexure-11 passed in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 by the Opposite Party No.5 through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. Page 7 of 9
Arguments
Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate Mr. Tej Kumar, Learned Additional Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 13.05.2025 / date of judgment : 16.05.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order of dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) under Section 8A of the OLR Act passed on dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5). 2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) that, the said OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8A of the OLR Act was initiated as per the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 for conversion of land of the petitioner vide Khata No,.474/4656, Plot No.299/1823/2663 Ac.0.060 decimals and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 Ac.0.020 decimals in total Ac.0.080 decimals in Mouza-Patia, Thana No.22 in the district of Khurda under Bhubaneswar Tahasil from Baje Phasala-2 to Gharabari Kissam, but, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) dismissed to the said OLR Case No.2001 of 2022(arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) as per final order dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 assigning following two reasons/grounds, i.e.:- (i) The possession of the land could not be ascertained the Revenue Inspector, the report of as per Kalarahanga, and (ii) The said land is not permissible for conversion pursuant to Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha. Page 2 of 9 4. The petitioner has challenged the said order of dismissal to his OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 passed on dated 10.01.2025 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) by filing this writ petition. 5. Now, it is to be seen, whether, the above two reasons/grounds assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order indicated above for the dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8A of the OLR Act of the petitioner are sustainable/acceptable under law. 6. So far as the 1st reason assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order vide Annexure-11 that, the possession of the land could not be ascertained as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga is concerned, It is very fundamental in law as per Rule-32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 that, all the revenue records in the village/mouza shall be maintained and kept up-to-date in the office of the local Tahasildar in accordance with the rules thereof. 7. When, undisputed RoR of the land (in respect of which, the petitioner has prayed for conversion) vide Khata No.474/4656 stands in the name of the petitioner and when the Tahasildar(Opposite Party No.4) Page 3 of 9 has been accepting rents for the same regularly in each and every year from the petitioner through Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga and when the plots under that Khata No.474/4656 in Mouza-Patia under Thana No.22 are distinct and separate full plots, whose separate identities/locations have been shown in the village Map available in the office of the Tahasildar including Opposite Party No.5 as well as in the office of the R.I., Kalarahanga and when the said RoR as well as village Map are available under the public domain in the Bhulekh Website of Bhubaneswar Tahasil and when, the Opposite Party No.5 is the custodian of all the revenue documents including Maps and RoRs in respect of all the properties under his territorial jurisdiction including the above two plots of the petitioner, then at this juncture, the Opposite Party No.5 had no authority or jurisdiction under law to express in the impugned order that, the possession of the land could not be ascertained as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga, as the Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga had/has been collecting rent of the said land of the petitioner vide Khata No.474/4656 in Mouza-Patia regularly from the petitioner since the year 2014 knowing very well from the official records including the RoR and village Map about the separate identities/locations of the above two plots as well as possession of the petitioner over the same. Page 4 of 9 8. The conclusion drawn above finds support from the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Gojendra Prasad Das vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2016(2) O.J.R.-265, it is has been clarified that, “if the petitioner has not produced the non- availability certificate, it can be verified by the State from the official records, because the State authorities are the custodian of the official records.” (ii) In a case between P. Papu vrs. Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram SRO Rasipuram, Namakkal District in the district Madras : reported in 2025(2) Civil LJ-205, it has been held that, “when certified copies of the documents have been produced before the Sub-Registrar and it was not impossible for the Sub-Registrar to have it verified with the original record, because, the original record thereof is available in his own office, insisting upon a non-traceability appeared to be a rather wasteful exercise.” So, for the reasons assigned above, it is held that, the above first reason assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order under Annexure-11 for the dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 of the petitioner is not sustainable under law. 9. So far as the 2nd reason assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 that, it is not permissible for conversion of the said plots in pursuant to the Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of the Page 5 of 9 Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha is concerned, it is well evident from the paragraph-4 of the final order dated 23.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 by this Court under Annexure-10 after hearing from the petitioner and Opposite Parties that, the Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha have been held to be not applicable to the above properties of the petitioner under Khata No.474/4656 in Mouza-Patia for conversion of the Kissam of the plots covered under that Khata. 10. When, it has been held by this Court in the final order dated 23.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 under Annexure-10 that, Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha are not applicable to the land involved in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 for conversion as per Section 8A of the OLR Act, then, at this juncture, the Opposite Party No.5 should not have held that, the land of the petitioner is not permissible for conversion in pursuant to the said Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha. Page 6 of 9 Therefore, like the first reason, the above second reason assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order under Annexure-11 for the dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 of the petitioner is also not legally sustainable under law. 11. As such, the above both the reasons assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order under Annexure-11 are contrary to the
Decision
14. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. The impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022(arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5) is quashed/set aside. 16. The matter vide OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) is remitted back to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) for its disposal afresh on the basis of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 along with this judgment for conversion of Plot No.299/1823/2663 and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 under Khata No.474/4656 under Thana No.22 in Mouza-Patia in the district of Khurda recorded in the name of the petitioner as per Section 8A of the OLR Act within two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner and to report about its final disposal to this Court in reference to this writ petition for keeping track over the matter regarding the implementation of this final order, because, it appears from the impugned order under Annexure-11 that, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition vide Page 8 of 9 CONTC No.1294 of 2025 before this Court for non-compliance of the direction given earlier by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 by the Opposite Party No.5 and after initiation of the said Contempt Petition vide CONTC No.1294 of 2025, the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 was disposed of by the Opposite Party No.5 through the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th of May, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 16-May-2025 16:30:36 Page 9 of 9