Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.36549 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Ankit Aggarwal & others .......… Petitioners -VERSUS- Collector, Sundargarh & Others --------- Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners For the Opposite Parties : Mr.P.K.Rath, Sr.Adv. Mr.S.Rath, Adv. : Mr.U.K.Samal, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.3 to 9) Mr.G.Mohanty, S.C. (for O.P. Nos.1 and 2) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing the impugned orders dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively passed in Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1). 2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the case land originally belonged to Raj Sarkar Sri Bira Mitra Pratap Sekhar Deo. The same was under Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423. In its next settlement of the year 1976, the case land was recorded in the name of Madhu Routia and Khudan Routia. After the death of Madhu Routia, his branch was represented through Mahadev Routia and others. The Branch of Khudan Routia @ Singh was represented through Abhimanyu Singh and others. Mahadev Routia, Prabhu Routia, Ghuran Routia and Khudan Routia stated to have executed a registered sale deed on dated 17.09.1966 in respect of the properties covered under Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423, Ac.2.38 decimals vide Annexure-3 in favour of Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat. Page 2 of 17 The purchasers of the case land i.e. Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat failed to produce their above sale deed dated 17.09.1966 before the Settlement Authorities during settlement operation of the year 1976 for recording of the case land in their names. For which, in the settlement of the year 1976, the case land was not recorded in their names. Thereafter, Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat filed Revision Revision No.250 of 2006 through one Gouranga Pasayat challenging the non-recording of the case land in their names. As the said Gouranga Pasayat had already expired prior to the filing of the said Revision No.250 of 2006, for which, that Revision No.250 of 2006 was dismissed for default on dated 01.03.2008. Then, the aforesaid purchasers of the case land remained silent. In the year 2022, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted to sell the case land. As, by that time, Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022 on being filed by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in respect of the case land was pending before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1), for which, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Page 3 of 17 Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted a clarification from the Sub- Registrar, Panposh, whether, sale deed in respect of the case land can be executed by them or not during the pendency of Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022. For which, The Sub-Registrar, Panposh sought for a clarification about the same from the District Registrar, Registrar as per letter No.501 dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure-6), to which, The District Registrar, Sundargarh answered as per letter No.1556 dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-7) that, there is no bar for the execution of sale deed in respect of the case land by the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R.. On the basis of such clarification of the District Registrar, Sundargarh, the legal heirs of the Hal recorded tenants of the case land executed sale deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023 transferring the case land in favour of the Petitioners and delivered possession thereof. The Petitioners being the purchasers of the case land through the aforesaid two sale deeds dated 09.02.2023 applied before the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) for mutation of the case land to their names by filing Mutation Case Nos.683 and 684 of 2023, but, Page 4 of 17 the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) dropped their above both the Mutation Cases vide Mutation Cases Nos.683 and 684 of 2023 as per order dated 02.05.2023 on the ground of pendency of the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 in respect of the said land before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) filed by O.P. Nos.3 to 9. When, the aforesaid Mutation Cases of the Petitioners were dropped by the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2), then, the Petitioners prepared for their intervention and impleadment in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1), but, prior to the approach of the Petitioners to the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1), the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) disposed of that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 filed by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 on dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) giving directions to the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) for correction of the records of the case land to the name of the Petitioners of the said Settlement Revision No.530 of 2022 (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition). Page 5 of 17 3. After knowing about the same, the Petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2023 before the High Court of Orissa against the Petitioners in Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition) praying for quashing the said final order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 in favour of the Petitioners of that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition). After hearing from both the sides, that W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2023 was disposed of by this Court as per its final order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure-14) giving liberty to the Petitioners to file an application before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) praying for recalling the final order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 clarifying that, in the event, the Petitioners file an application before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) to recall the final order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 within a period of two weeks from the date of said order along with the certified copy of that Page 6 of 17 judgment, the same shall be considered by the Collector, Sundargarh in accordance with law providing
Legal Reasoning
opportunity of hearing to the Parties likely to be affected and till the disposal of such petition, the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in that Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 shall be kept in abeyance”. On the basis of the aforesaid directions given by this Court in the order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure-14) passed in W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2023, the Petitioners approached Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in due time by filing an application on dated 04.09.2023 praying for recalling the final order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed in settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022. The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) heard such petition dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure-15) of the Petitioners from both the sides and as per its order dated 15.09.2023 (Annnexure-1), the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) rejected to the Petition dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioners assigning the cryptic reasons. 4. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the petition dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioner passed on dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the Page 7 of 17 Petitioners challenged the same filing this writ petition praying for quashing the same on the ground that, the Petitioners were the necessary parties in that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 being the purchasers of the case land prior to the passing of the order dated 09.06.2023 in that Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022. For which, they (Petitioners) should have been given opportunity of being heard in that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in that Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 on dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) without impleading them as Parties is bad and illegal, the same is liable to be quashed (set aside). 5. I have already heard from the learned Sr. counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 and the learned Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2. 6. In order to assail the impugned orders vide Annexures 13 and 1, the learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the following decisions:- Ghanashyam Nial and others Vrs. Additional (i) Consolidation, Commissioner, Sambalpur and others & Anand Agarwal @ Settlement and Page 8 of 17 Singhania Vrs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.10241 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.21941 of 2023. Premalata Patnaik Vrs. Joint Commissioner, (ii) Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and others decided in W.A. No.378 of 2023. (iii) Durga Charan Roul and others Vrs. Bhagirathi Roul and others reported in 2017 SCC Online Ori 896 (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs and others Vrs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 513 (v) N.Jayaram Reddy and another Vrs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool reported in (1979) 3 SCC 578 (vi) Ashok Transport Agency Vrs. Awadhesh Kumar and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 567 On the contrary, in support of the impugned orders vide Annexures 13 and 1, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 relied upon the following decisions:- H.Anjanappa and others Vrs. A.Prabhakar (i) and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 183. (ii) Kasi Prasad Modi Vrs. Chaitnya Dev & Radhakanta Deb Baba Matha, Puri decided in W.P.(C) No.3229 of 2016. (iii) Krushna Chandra Mahakul Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2003 SCC Online Orissa 234. (iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vrs. Katiji and others reporded in (1987) 2 SCC 107. (v) C.Ramamurthy reported in (1993) 4 SCC 41 Karuppaswamy others and Vrs. 7. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, on the basis of the orders dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively Page 9 of 17 passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the crux of this writ petition is that, “whether the Petitioners in this writ petition were/are entitled under law to be heard in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 for the final disposal of the same as per law on merit”? 8. It is the undisputed case of the Parties, that, the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 (Petitioners in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022) had filed Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the OS & S Act, 1958 praying for correction of the R.o.R of the case land of last settlement of the year 1976 from the names of the predecessors of the vendors of the Petitioners to their names on the basis of sale deed dated 17.09.1966 in their favour. 9. The Petitioners in this writ petition are claiming for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land to their names on the basis of the sale deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023 in their favour in respect of the case land and as purchasers from the legal heirs of the recorded tenant of the Hal R.o.R. published in the year 1976. Page 10 of 17 As such, prior to the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022, the said deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023 in respect of the case land were executed by the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land in favour of the Petitioners of this writ petition. The Petitioners have not been given any opportunity of being heard in the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 for its disposal on merit impleading them (Petitioners) as parties in the said Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022.
Decision
The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) has disposed of the petition dated 04.09.2023 of the Petitioners on dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) assigning the reasons that, “the Prayer for correction of R.o.R. issued by the Settlement Authority cannot be dismissed only for non-filing of petition within the limitation period, where there are material, evidences available in support of the claim of the Petitioner. Hence, there is no error in the condonation of delay and admission of the revision, also there is no material irregularity in Page 11 of 17 the order passed on 9th June, 2023 and the decision taken in the revision petition will hold good”. 10. Under the above factual backgrounds, now it will be seen, whether, as per law, the Petitioners were entitled to be heard in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 before the O.P. No.1 for its final decision on merit. On this aspect, it is felt proper to refer the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath and another Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others reported in 1989 (2) OLR 135 in that, In a revision for correction of R.o.Rs—Persons, whose interests are likely to be affected not made parties.-Revision allowed—Petitioners, who claim title to the disputed land on the strength of lease and gift having not been impleaded praying for hearing the revision case afresh and recalling the revisional order—Rejection of prayer—Propriety of— Held, fit case to re-open the matter to comply with the requirements of principle of natural justice—Impugned order quashed—Matter remanded for disposal on merit. (ii) In a case between Nilakamai Das & Othrs Vrs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in JBR Vol-XV (1978) Part IV 55 D.B. that, as per law, “Parties concerned” would not necessarily mean, those who had been contesting the pariticulars in the R.o.Rs. before the Settlement Authorities. Any person, who would be affected by the direction of the Commissioner would be entitled to a hearing. (iii) In a case between Lucy Narona Vrs. Raghunath Jew Bije reported in (1992) 74 CLT 463 in Para No.5 that, Page 12 of 17 the transferee by the date of filing of the suit, they are the necessary parties in the suit, any decision of the point is likely to affect their interest. The suit will not be maintainable in their absence. (iv) In a case between Jaibunnisha Bibi Vrs. Sk.Jalaluddin and others reported in 2008 (Supp.1) OLR 712 (Para Nos.10 and 11) that, it is always open for an Appellate Court to remand a matter, if it comes to a conclusion that, there has been non-joinder of necessary party. Court may at any stage direct the addition of a party, when the Court is of the view that, the said party’s presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions included in the suit. 11. Here in this matter at hand, when, the Petitioners are the purchasers of the case land from the legal heirs of the Hal recorded tenants prior to the final order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) and when the said Hal R.o.R. of the case land published in the year 1976 had remained unchallenged by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition for long period since 1976 to 2022 and when the Petitioners are claiming their interest in the case land, as the purchasers of the same from the legal heirs of the Hal recorded tenants and when the impugned orders dated 09.06.2023 Page 13 of 17 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 naturally have an affect on the Petitioners claim in the case land, as they (Petitioners) are claiming the case land as the purchasers of the same, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, it is a fit case for reopening the matter vide Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 in order to comply the requirements of the principles of natural justice i.e. in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners of this writ petition in the said Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 (which was decided in their absence) for no other reason, but only, in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties in respect of the case land without giving any right to the Petitioners in this writ petition to question the revision for its delay in filing by the Petitioners thereof on the point of limitation, as it is the primary function of all Courts including the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) to adjudicate disputes between the Parties on merit and to Page 14 of 17 advance substantial justice instead of giving much stress on technicality like limitation. 12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioners. The same is to be allowed. 13. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is allowed on contest. 14. The impugned orders dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) are quashed (set aside). 15. The matter vide Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 is remitted back to the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) to decide the same afresh impleading the Petitioners of this writ petition as the O.Ps in the said Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 and to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties in this writ petition as per law on merit concerning the entitlement of the parties for recording or non-recording of their names in the R.o.R. of the case land within the parameters of the OSS Act, Page 15 of 17 1958 and the OSS Rules, 1962 without allowing the Petitioners of this writ petition to raise a technical ground questioning the maintainability of the Settlement revision petition No.530 of 2022 filed by the Petitioners thereof (O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in this writ petition) on the ground of limitation, but, to argue the same on merit. The Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) is directed to dispose of the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 independently according to law without being influenced in any manner by this judgment as expeditiously as possible in full compliance with the Principles of natural justice. 16. The Parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) in Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 on dated 16.10.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1) as to further proceedings of the Settlement Revision Petition No.530 of 2022 according to the observations made in this judgment. Page 16 of 17 17. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack 24th Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56 Page 17 of 17