The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24717 of 2019 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Raghupati Satyanarayan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : For Opposite Parties : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate Mr. Manas Chand, Advocate Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4) Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Otta, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.5) CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 13.08.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025 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 quashing the order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) passed by the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4) in SRP No.458 of 2014. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Party No.5 (Siba Sankar Tripathy) filed SRP No.458 of 2014 under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 against the petitioner of this writ petition, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayan arraying him as Opposite Party No.1 in that SRP No.458 of 2014 praying for correction his caste reflected in Column No.2 of the Hal RoR of Khata No.52 of village Semiliguda under Semiliguda Tahasil in district of Koraput from “Kandha” to “Kapu” on the ground that, the Opposite Party No.1(Raghupatruni Satyanarayan of that SRP No.458 of 2014(who is the petitioner in this writ petition) belong to “Kapu” by caste, but, not “Kandha” by caste, as per the previous revenue records, to which, Opposite Party No.1 in that SRP No.458 of 2014 (petitioner in this writ petition) objected. After hearing from both the sides, the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4) allowed that Page 2 of 14 SRP No.458 of 2014 filed by Siba Sankar Tripathy(Opposite Party No.5 in this writ petition) as per the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) and held that, the caste entry of the Opposite Party No.1 of that SRP No.458 of 2014, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayan in Column No.2 of the RoR vide Khata No.52 of village-Semiliguda under Semiliguda Tahasil in district of Koraput as “Kandha” is not correct, because, his correct caste is “Kapu” and directed Tahasildar, Semiliguda(Opposite Party No.3) for correction of his caste in Column No.2 of Khata No.52 from “Kandha” to “Kapu” and directed to maintain the same in the records of that Khata No.52 in the Tahasil Office by the Tahasildar, Semiliguda and also further held that, as the mistake of caste entry of the Opposite Party No.1 (Raghupatruni Satyanarayan) in Column No.2 of the Settlement RoR for Khata No.52 is being corrected, the copy of the said RoR vide Khata No.52 available in the district Record Room with wrong caste entry as “Kandha” is treated as modified to “Kapu” for all purposes. 3. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) passed in SRP Page 3 of 14 No.458 of 2014 by the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4), the Opposite Party No.1 thereof, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayana challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing that impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) against the petitioner of SRP No.458 of 2014, i.e., Siba Shankar Tripathy arraying him as Opposite Party No.5 and also arraying the State and other Government Officials as Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. 4.
Legal Reasoning
I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. 5. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, No caste certificate was filed or produced by the (i) petitioner in this writ petition before Opposite Party No.4 in SRP No.458 of 2014 obtaining the same from the competent authority showing his caste as “Kandha”, though, the petitioner in this writ petition had contended that, Caste Certificate was issued in his favour in RMC No.267/81 indicating his caste as “Kandha”. The evidence of the witnesses in SRP No.458 of 2014 (ii) show that, the father of the petitioner, i.e., Raghupatruni Venkatswamy was migrated from Salur area in the State of Page 4 of 14 Andhra Pradesh and the caste of the father of the petitioner at the time of his migration was “Kapu”. observations made in OSATIP Case (iii) The No.1617/1970, OSATIP Case No.349/76 and OSATIP Appeal Case No.63/76 against the petitioner have not been challenged before the proper statutory higher forums thereof even though in the findings thereof, his caste was held as “Kapu”. (iv) Non-stating about the caste of the petitioner by his villagers as “Kandha”. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition(Opposite Party No.1 in SRP No.458 of 2014) has challenged the impugned order (Annexure-7 series) passed by the Opposite Party No.4 in SRP No.458 of 2014 under the following grounds:- (a) Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4) had no power or jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 to pass the impugned order for changing the caste entry of the petitioner in Column No.2 of the Hal Khata No.52 published by the settlement authorities. (b) In the sale deed of the year 1964 executed by the father of the petitioner, his caste was indicated as “Kandha”, which has not been cancelled or set aside as yet. (c) Declaration made by the Civil Court in the judgment and decree passed in the suit vide O.S. No.93 of 1983 filed by his father that, his caste is “Kandha” but, not “Kapu” and the said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.93 of 1983 by the Civil Court has not been set aside as yet. 7. Now, it will be seen, whether the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order vide Annexure-7 series passed by the Opposite Party No.4 in SRP No.458 of 2014 is legally sustainable under law. Page 5 of 14 8. So far as the first ground raised by the petitioner in order to assail the impugned order, i.e., Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4) had no power or jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 to pass the impugned order for changing the caste entry of the petitioner in Column No.2 of the Hal Khata No.52 published by the settlement authorities is concerned; Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, provides that, the Board of revenue(which includes the Opposite Party No.4) has power to revise any record of right or any portion of a record of right at any time after the date of final publication giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 9. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between M/s. Keshari Chandra Das and another vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 62(1986) CLT-322 that, the particulars to be recorded in the record-of-rights are required to be specified in the order made under Section 11 of OSS Act, 1958 and may the other particulars. The in addition include to particulars detailed in Rule-21, which contemplate recording the name of the occupant, the situation and extent of the land held by the occupant. Besides under Page 6 of 14 Rule-22, a separate Khatian is required to be prepared in respect of every interest in the land for each person interested or each branch of persons jointly interested and the Khatian is to show the particulars of the right and liability of each such person and group of persons as required under the different clauses of Rule-21 except Clause(viii) thereof. Joint Commissioner, In a case between Narendra Kumar Mohapatra (ii) vrs. and Consolidation and others : reported in 2008(Supp.II) OLR-779 that, Board of Revenue vested power with the jurisdiction to suo motu correct any record of rights at any time after the date of final publication. No period of limitation prescribed. Settlement (iii) In a case between Sanatan Sethi and others vrs. Kulamani Das and others : reported in 2006(Supp.-II) OLR(BOR)-994 that, the Commissioner can correct the entries in the record of rights in the meritorious cases condoning the delay of several years. In view of the provisions of law envisaged in Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 coupled with the ratio of the decisions referred to (supra), it cannot be held that, the Opposite Party No.4 had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision vide SRP No.458 of 2014 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 for correction of the entry in the Column No.2 of the RoR of Khata No.52 in Mouza-Semiliguda published by the settlement authorities. Section 11 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 and Rules-21 and 22 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 provide that, every finally published settlement RoR shall contain the particulars indicated in Page 7 of 14 the Rule-21 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 including the class/caste, to which, the tenant belong. When, the Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 empowers the revisional authority like the Opposite Party No.4 to pass an order for correction of the entries including the caste entries of the tenant in the finally published RoRs and when, SRP No.458 of 2014 was entertained for correction of caste entry in the Column No.2 of the ROR of Khata No.52, then at this juncture, it cannot be held that, the Opposite Party No.4 had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision vide SRP No.458 of 2014 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958. 10. So far as the second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., in the sale deed of the year 1964 executed by the father of the petitioner, his cast was indicated as “Kandha”, which has not been cancelled or set aside as yet is concerned; On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- Page 8 of 14 In a case between Sitaram Patel and others vrs. (i) Collector, Sambalpur and others in 2013(Supp.II) OLR-308 that, mere mentioning of caste in a sale deed cannot be a determinative factor of the caste of a person. : reported So, in view of the propositions of law clarified in the ratio of the above decision, the 2nd ground raised by the petitioner, i.e., indication of his caste in the sale deed of the year 1964 shall be a factor for deciding his caste as “Kandha” as per law for its all practical purposes cannot be acceptable under law. 11. So far as the third ground raised on behalf of the petitioner, i.e, declaration made by the Civil Court in the judgment and decree in the suit vide O.S. No.93 of 1983 filed by the father of this writ petition that, his caste as “Kandha” but, not “Kapu” and the said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.93 of 1983 by the Civil Court has not been set aside as yet is concerned; On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :- (i) In a case between Nityananda Sharma and another vrs. State of Bihar : reported in 1996(1) Civil Court Cases-359(S.C.) that, court cannot give declaration of the social status as a tribe or declare the person as Scheduled Tribe. Page 9 of 14 (ii) In a case between State of Tamilnadu and others vrs. A. Gurusamy : reported in AIR 1997 S.C.-1199 that, SC and ST lists are declared by the President of India. The to make any declaration Civil Court concerning such caste stands impliedly barred. jurisdiction In a case between Ganesh S/o Gulabrao Suroshe (iii) vrs. State of Mahashtra and others : reported in 1997(1) Apex Court Journal-683(S.C.) and (1997) 4 SCC-340 that, a court cannot examine to find out the caste of the party. So, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare that, a person belong to a particular caste. For which, it is held that, declaration made by the Civil Court in O.S. No.93 of 1983 in respect of the caste of the father of the petitioner cannot be a ground to accept that, the petitioner belongs to “Kandha” by caste. 12. So far as non-production of caste certificate of the petitioner before the Opposite Party No.4 showing his caste as “Kandha” is concerned; On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of following decision :- (i) In a case between Registrar General, Calcutta High Court vrs. Shrinivas Prasad Shah and others : reported in 2013(2) CCC-187(S.C.) that, the candidates claiming to be SC/ST/BC must have a certificate from a competent authority. No such certificate was produced from the competent authority. Consequently, in absence of Page 10 of 14 requisite certificate, the Commissioner was justified in treating them, otherwise then their claimed caste. When, the petitioner is claiming that, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community having his Sub-caste “Kandha” on the basis of the caste certificate issued in his favour and when, in spite of several opportunities provided to him(petitioner), he could not produce any caste certificate issued by any competent authority showing his caste as “Kandha”, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it cannot be held that, the observations made by the Opposite Party No.4 in the impugned order vide Annexure-7 series concerning the failure of the petitioner to establish his caste as “Kandha” is erroneous. 13. So far as non-stating about the caste of the petitioner by his villagers as “Kandha” is concerned; The father of the petitioner was migrated to Orissa from Salur area of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the caste of the father of the petitioner was “Kapu” at the time of his migration. Page 11 of 14 On this aspect the proposition of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions :- (i) In a case between Subhash Chandra and another vrs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others : reported in 2009(2) CJD (S.C.)-307 that, caste cannot be changed on migration. Because, a person on his migration to any State shall carry the same status with him. (ii) In a case between State of Uttranchal vrs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others : reported in 2010(2) CLR (S.C.)-1065 that, a migrant of SC/ST person of another State may not be deemed to be so, after migration to another State—It does not mean that, he ceases to be an SC/ST altogether and becomes a member of forward caste.(Para-7) (iii) In a case between Banamali Mallick vrs. Sub- Collector, Keonjhar and others : reported in 2012(1) OJR-831 that, a person, who belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Bihar as per the Presidential notification is not entitled to entertain to publish a Scheduled Caste, so far as the State of Odisha is concerned. (iv) In a case between Melwin Chiras Kujur vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in 2016(1) CLR(S.C.)-1131 and In a case between Sanjeev Kumar and another vrs. State of Bihar and others : reported in 2016(1) CLR(S.C.)-1136 that, benefit of reservation are not available to those migrating from one State to another even if, such candidates belong to the same caste. (v) In a case between Bhadar Ram(D) Thr. LRs. vrs. Jassa Ram and others : reported in 2022 Livelaw (S.C.)- 10 that, a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab as an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan. 14. When, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the caste is always by Page 12 of 14 birth, but, not by migration or marriage and when, the Opposite Party No.4 has specifically indicated in the impugned order vide Annexure-7 series that, the caste of the father of the petitioner in the Salur area of the State of Andhra Pradesh was “Kapu” 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, even after migration of the father of the petitioner from Salur area of Andhra Pradesh to Semiliguda in the State of Orissa, neither the caste of the father of the petitioner nor the caste of the petitioner can be changed from “Kapu” to “Kandha”, as the petitioner has born through his father, who was “Kapu” by caste. For which, the observations made by the Opposite Party No.4 in the impugned order vide Annexure-7 series that, the migration of the father of the petitioner from Salur area of Andhra Pradesh to Semliguda in the State of Odisha cannot change the caste of the petitioner from “Kapu” to Kandha” cannot be held as erroneous. 15. As per discussions and observations made above, when none of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner Page 13 of 14 to assail the impugned order passed by the Opposite Party No.4 as per Annexure-7 series has become sustainable under law, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does not arise.
Decision
16. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail. 17. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest. 18. As such, this writ petition is disposed of finally. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 07:26:49 Page 14 of 14