Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.18158 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Purusottam Nayak … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Odisha and Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Law on this aspect has already been clarified by this Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Anantadan Suna and others vrs. Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and others : reported in 2021(I) OLR-871 that, the Commissioner while deciding a revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 cannot remand the matter to the Tahasilar to take a final decision in the said matter. Because, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to delegate his power to the Tahasildar, who is not competent under law to exercise the power, which is invested under law with the Commissioner as per Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958. At the time of hearing of any revision, if necessary for deciding the Page 2 of 6. same, the Commissioner may call for a report from the Tahasildar and can decide the revision finally taking the report of the Tahasildar, other materials and law into account. Therefore, it was held by the High Court that, the operative portion of the impugned order relating to the remand of the case to the Tahasildar for deciding the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. For which, the High Court felt it proper to remit the matter back to the Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. (ii) In a case between Pradyumna Kumar Panda vrs. Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar and others : reported in 2019(I) OLR-659 that, the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack cannot remand the matter to the Tahasildar for deciding the same by the Tahasildar. For which, the matter concerning the remand was quashed and direction was given to the Commissioner to hear the revision afresh after setting aside the remand order. (iii) In a case between Sarat Chandra Sahu vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa Cuttack and others : reported in 82(1996) CLT 321(D.B.) that, the provisions envisaged in Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 empowers the Commissioner for deciding the revision in relation to the final publication of the Record of rights. The statutory authority being empowered with the statutory powers shall decide the revision by it in proper manner. So, the litigants will have a sense of satisfaction that, their Page 3 of 6. grievances have been appropriately dealt with. For which, as per law, the Commissioner himself is required to address the case on its merits, but, instead of doing so, he should not have remanded the matter to an another authority for its adjudication. Therefore, the operative portion of the impugned order relating to remand is absolutely unsustainable. For which, the revisional authority was directed by the High Court to decide the revision afresh and the remand order passed by the Commissioner was set aside. 5. Here, in this matter at hand, when the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) remanded the matter vide SRP No.2248 of 2014 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the same without deciding the same itself and when the statute only empowers the Commissioner to decide the revision itself and when statute does not empower the Commissioner to delegate its revisional power to the Tahasildar for deciding the case by the Tahasildar and when, in the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) has delegated his power to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the impugned dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II Page 4 of 6. (Opposite Party No.2) in SRP No.2248 of 2014 cannot be sustainable under law. 6. Therefore, there is justification under for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7. For which, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2024(Annexure-4) passed in SRP No.2248 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) is quashed. 8. The matter vide SRP No.2248 of 2014 is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and others, if any, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment. 9. The parties of this writ petition are directed to appear in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) in SRP No.2248 of 2014 on dated 09.10.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II (Opposite Party No.2) as to further proceedings of the suit vide SRP No.2248 of 2014. Page 5 of 6. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
Arguments
: Mr. S.K. Parida. Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : J. Sahoo, Additional Ms. Standing Counsel (for the State). P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025 JUDGMENT 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 quashing of the impugned order dated 31.12.2024(Annexure-4) Page 1 of 6. passed in SRP No.2248 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II(Opposite Party No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4), the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revisional Court No.II(Opposite Party No.2) remanded SRP No.2248 of 2014 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for deciding the case by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. For which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the Annexure-4. 3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties(State). 4.
Decision
disposed of finally. (A.C. BEHERA) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 07:24:42 Page 6 of 6.