The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14250 of 2024 Bhaskar Chandra Patra …. Petitioner Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 12.11.2024 Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders under Annexures-9 & 10 with a direction to opposite party No.3 to record his name in respect of the case land under Stitiban status keeping in view Annexure-3 and on such other grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to Annexure-1, a copy of the Jamabandi Register and Annexure-2 and thereafter preparation of Jamabandi as per Annexure-3 in favour of the petitioner besides rent receipts as at Annexure-4 to show and satisfy that the land is required to be settled with him. It is further submitted that a suo motu proceeding was initiated by learned Assistant Settlement Officer(ASO), Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, which has led to the passing of the order under Annexure-7, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.27017 of 2017 disposed of on 5th January, 2021 with a direction to the learned ASO Page 1 of 4 to adjudicate the matter afresh providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with the conclusion that the concerned authority did not have the jurisdiction to sit over the settlement of land in view of the law decided in Smt. Lily Nanda & two others Vrs State of Odisha & others reported in 2018(I) OLR 559. The further contention is that with such direction as per Annexure-8, the impugned order under Annexure-9 was passed by the learned ASO followed by Annexure-10 by opposite party No.4. It is contended that the direction was for opposite party No.3 but it was delegated to opposite party No.4, who passed the impugned order under Annexure-10 dated 20th February, 2024 but in any case, opposite party No.3 did not have jurisdiction to reopen with a suo motu proceeding, which has recently been taken cognizance of and decided by this Court in Narottam Rath and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others MANU/OR/0002/2023 in W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014 and batch of matters. With the above submission, the contention is that opposite party No.3 cannot have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter with a suo motu proceeding initiated, nevertheless, a direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.3 to readjudicate it and dispose of the same keeping in view the settled law decided in Narottam Rath (supra). 4. State. 5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the As per Annexure-8, this Court in W.P.(C) No.27017 of 2017 directed opposite party No.3 to rehear the matter providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner keeping in view the decision in Smt. Lily Nanda (supra), in the meantime, with regard to exercise of suo motu power by learned ASO, the decision in Narottam Rath (supra) arrived. In fact, in spite of order under Annexure-8, opposite Page 2 of 4 party No.3 passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-9 followed by Annexure-10. In fact, from Annexure-10, it is made to understand that opposite party No.4 entertained a doubt as to if he has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of the specific direction issued to opposite party No.3 as per Annexure-8. 6. In so far as the decision in Narottam Rath (supra) is concerned, the final findings are reproduced herein: “19. In that view of the matter, the following directions are issued in all these writ petitions: (i) The impugned orders of the ASOs declining to accept the request of the petitioners for recording of their names in the ROR in respect of the lands in question on the ground that the land belongs to the Government, are hereby set aside; (ii) The corresponding orders by the Appellate Authorities affirming such orders of the ASOs are also hereby set aside; (iii) A direction is issued to the ASOs to now proceed to record the names of the respective petitioners concerning the land in qu4stion in their names in the ROR, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. (iv) Where the land in question stands recorded in the final published RoR in the name of the Government that entry will stand cancelled by virtue of this order and the ASO will proceed to record it in favour of the respective petitioners.” 7. In view of the above decision, it has been held that the learned ASOs do not have jurisdiction to go beyond the scope of powers under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. In the instant case, as it appears, suo motu jurisdiction has been exercised by opposite party No.3. Page 3 of 4 8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner acquired interest over the case land by virtue of Annexure-2 followed by Annexures-3 & 4, but it was intervened by order of opposite party No.3 and in view of the conclusion of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27017 of 2017 with reference to decision in Smt. Lily Nanda (supra) and the recent law decided in Narottam Rath (supra), the conclusion is that the suo motu jurisdiction as exercised by opposite party No.3 is not permissible in the eye of law. As a necessary corollary, it has to be held that the proceeding in Misc. Case No.105 of 2022 pending before opposite party No.3 is liable to be dropped with a direction to the said authority to record the land in favour of the petitioner. Such is the conclusion in view of the law laid down in Narottam Rath (supra), wherein, it has been concluded that the ASOs do not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. At the same time, this Court is also of the conclusion that opposite party No.3 is directed to record the case land in the name of the petitioner within a stipulated period. 9. 10. Hence, it is ordered. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a logical sequitur, Annexures-9 & 10 are hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to record the case land with the petitioner as soon as possible concluding the exercise preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Asst. Registrar-Cum-Senior Secretary Alok Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:40:08 (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4