Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Manoranjan Das … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 1 of 12 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) passed in Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Keonjhar (Opp. Party No.4).
Legal Reasoning
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the case land originally belonged to one Batakrushna Das. The Sabik R.o.R of the case land was published in his name i.e. in the name of Batakrushna Das. The said Batakrushna Das died leaving behind his wife Bimala Das @ Bewa as his sole successor. After the death of Batakrushna Das, the case land was devolved upon his widow successor i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa. While Bimala Das @ Bewa being the sole successor of Batakrushna Das was the owner and in possession over the WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 2 of 12 case land, she sold the same to the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das through sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 and delivered possession thereof. For which, on the basis of the said sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965, Raghunath Das (purchaser) became the owner of the same and possessed the same exclusively. The said Raghunath Das mutated the case land to his name through Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67 and on the basis of the order passed on dated 14.12.1966 vide Annexure-2 in Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67 by the Tahasildar, Champua, R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of Raghunath Das (father of the petitioner). Then, father of the petitioner paid the rent of the case land in his name and obtained rent receipts vide Annexures 3 and 3A. The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das and his family members are staying at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand, because, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the Steel Plant, Jamshedpur. The vendor of the father of the petitioner i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa died on WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 3 of 12 20.04.1996, which has been reflected in the death certificate vide Annexure-5. The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das died on dated 05.01.2001, which was been reflected in the death certificate vide Annexure-6. As, the petitioner along with his family members were staying at Jharkhand, for which, they could not take step during settlement operation for recording the case land in the name of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the settlement authorities published the final R.o.R of the case land vide Annexure-4 in the year 1998 in the name of a dead person i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa (vendor of the father of the petitioner) erroneously and illegally under Khata No.476, though, much prior to the publication of R.o.R i.e. much prior to April, 1998, the vendor of the father of the petitioner i.e. Bimala das @ Bewa had expired, because her date of death was 20.04.1996. The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das died on dated 05.01.2001 leaving behind the petitioner and others as his successors. For which, after the death of the father of the petitioner, the case land devolved upon the petitioner- WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 4 of 12 Manoranjan Das and others. Therefore, the petitioner along with others have become the owners and in possession over the case land. When the petitioner came to know about the erroneous publication of Hal R.o.R of the case land under Khata No.476 in the name of dead person i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa, who had no interest in the case land and Bimala Das has no legal heir, then, the petitioner filed Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 before the Opp. Party No.4 praying for recording the case land in his name on the basis of the sale deed vide Annexure-1 executed by Bimala Das in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das. After hearing, the Opp. Party No.4 dismissed to the Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 of the petitioner on dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) assigning the reasons that, “as the recorded tenant of the case land i.e. Bimala Das wife of Batakrushna Das died without issue, then, the case is of civil in nature, hence, this Court cannot pass any order. So, the Revision is dismissed.” 3. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Consolidation Revision Petition WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 No.94/2020 by the Opp. Party No.4, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consitutiton of India, 1950 praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) passed in Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 by the Opp. Party No.4 and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 (Tahasildar, Champua) for recording the case land in favour of the successors of Raghunath Das. 4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the case land originally belonged to Batakrushna Das. The said Batakrushna Das died leaving behind his wife Bimala Das @ Bewa as his sole successor. Bimala Das @Bewa sold the case land through R.S.D. No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 to Raghunath Das (father of the petitioner). The case land was mutated by Raghunath Das as per order dated 14.12.1966 (Annexure-2) passed in Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67. After mutation, R.o.R of the case land vide Khata No.117 was prepared in the name of the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das. WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 6 of 12 Raghunath Das was paying rent in respect of the case land in his name as per the rent receipts vide Annexure-3 and 3A and the Government was receiving the same from him. The vendor of the father of the petitioner i.e. Bimala Das died on dated 20.04.1996 as per her death certificate vide Annexure-5. The Hal R.o.R of the case land was published in the month of April, 1998 under Hal Khata No.476 vide Annexure-4 in the name of dead Bimala Das (who had already sold the case land to the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das through sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965). The father of the petitioner Raghunath Das died on dated 05.01.2001 leaving behind the petitioner and others as his successors. 5. After the death of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 before the Opp. Party No.4 praying for recording the case land in his name. But, the Opp. Party No.4 dismissed to the Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 of the petitioner on dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) assigning the reasons that, WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 7 of 12 “the recorded tenant Bimala Das wife of Batakrushna Das died with no issue. For which, the case is of civil in nature. Hence, he cannot pass any order. For which, the Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 is dismissed.”
Legal Reasoning
6. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties. 7. When the case land was mutated to the name of the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das as per order dated 14.12.1966 (Annexure-2) passed in Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67 on the basis of the sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 (Annexure-1) executed by Bimala Das @ Bewa in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das and when the State was receiving the rent of the case land from the father of the petitioner on the basis of the R.o.R vide Khata No.117 prepared in his name as per rent receipts vide Annexure-3 & 3A, then, at this juncture, the recording of the case land in the Hal Settlement under Khata No.476 (Annexure-4) in the name of a dead person i.e. in the name of Bimala Das (who had expired much prior to the publication of the Hal R.o.R and who had no interest in the case land WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 8 of 12 alienating the same through RSD No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 as per Annexure-1), then, at this juncture, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R vide Annexure-4 in the name of Bimala Das can be held baseless. Because, there was no basis for recording the case land in the Hal R.o.R vide Khata No.476 (Annexure-4) in the name of Bimala Das, as, the said Bimala Das had no interest in the case land due to transfer of the same made by her through Sale Deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 vide Annexure-1 in favour of the father of the petitioner and that, when Bimala Das died leaving no heir. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. II. III. In a case between Govinda Naik Vs. Sankar Patro & Others reported in 1961 CLT Note-45 that, if the very foundation of the entry in the Khatian does not exist, then, the presumption in favour of its correctness losses its value altogether. In a case between Pabani Barik Vs. Bhubaneswar Development Authority represented through Its Secretary & Another reported in 2001 (II) OLR 221 that, there is no document to show that, the petitioner has legal right on the property, an order of mutation to the name of the petitioner by the Tahasildar is not based on any document, the said order for recording the same in the name of the petitioner, shall be deemed as non-est in the eye of law. (Para Nos.6 & 7) In a case between Absalam Paik & Others Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Gajapati & Others reported in 2011 (I) CLR (SC) 937 that, in the absence WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 9 of 12 IV. of any valid document establishing the title of the “D” over the case land, the entry in the R.o.R is of no help. (Para No.10) In a case between Alekh Rajhans vs. Joint three others Commissioner, Consolidation & reported in 2013 (I) OLR 584 that, vendor has no subsisting right to convey in favour of subsequent purchaser, after executing and registering the sale deed earlier. Subsequent sale deed is inconsequential. 8. Here in this matter at hand, when undisputedly the owner of the case land i.e. Bimala Das @Bewa was divested from the case land alienating/transferring her all right, title, interest and possession therein through the sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 (Annexure-1) in favour of the father of the petitioner and when Bimala Das @ Bewa had expired much prior to the publication of the Hal R.o.R vide Annexure-4, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand it is held that, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R of the case land as per Annexure-4 in the name of Bimala Das @ Bewa as well as the dismissal of the Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) are not legal. For which, the preparation of the Hal R.o.R of the case land vide Annexure-4 in the name of Bimala Das and order of WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 10 of 12 dismissal of Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 of the petitioner on dated 18.03.2025 vide Annexure-8 passed on dated 18.03.2025 by the Opp. Party No.4 are held as baseless. 9. Therefore, the said Hal R.o.R vide Annexure-4 of the case land as well as the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 vide Annexure-8 passed in Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 are liable to be quashed. When in the meantime, the settlement operation in respect of the Mouza of the case land has already been completed and when as per Rule 55 (4) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, after final publication of the Hal R.o.R, the finally published map as well as finally published record of rights are under the custody of the Tahasildar, then, at this juncture, necessary directions are required to be issued to the Tahasildar, Champua (Opp. Party No.2) for recording the case land in the name of the successors of Raghunath Das including the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 in respect of the case land in favor of the father of the petitioner (Raghunath Das). WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 11 of 12 Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. 11. The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) passed in Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 by the Opp. Party No.4 as well as the R.o.R vide Annexure-4 are quashed. The Tahasildar, Champua (Opp. Party No.2) is directed to prepare of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of all the successors of Raghunath Das including the petitioner as per the sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 executed by Bimala Das @ Bewa in favour of the father of the petitioner following the lawful procedures for such recording on the basis of the Judgment passed in this writ petition. 12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
Decision
disposed of finally. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Signature Not Verified The 23 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Digitally Signed Sr. Stenographer Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE WP(C) No.14615 of 2025 Page 12 of 12