Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.587 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Manjulata Jena … Petitioner State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties -VERSUS- Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Mukherji,Sr.Advocate. Mr.S.D.Ray,Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 10.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-7) WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 1 of 13 passed in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and also to quash the application of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) under Section 32 of the OSS Act, 1958 (Annexure 8) before the Board of Revenue, Cuttack and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to issue R.o.R. of the case land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court on dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 1) passed in the W.A. No.131 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. 2. I have already heard from the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. In the final order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023, this Hon’ble Court has passed order in that Annexure-1 as follows:- “Following the judgment in W.P.C. No.1608 of 2014 between Narottam Rath Vrs. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online, Orissa 153, Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Decision
dismissing the writ petition and directed that the WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 2 of 13 appellant’s name will be entered in the R.o.R. as prayed for, while at the same time reserving the liberty of the Government to proceed in accordance with law under Section 3B of the OGLS Act”. 4. On the basis of the above order/direction given by this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.131 of 2023 as per Annexure1, the petitioner of that W.A. No.131 of 2023 i.e. Manjulata Jena approached Assistant Settlement Officer (O.P. No.2) for preparation of R.o.R. of the case land in her name and the ASO (O.P. No.2) registered such application of the petitioner as Misc. Case No.285 of 2023, but, as per order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure 3) passed in that Misc. Case No.285 of 2023, he (O.P. No.2) requested Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to generate R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the petitioner as per the directions/orders of the Hon’ble courts passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 and issued a letter vide letter No.1615 dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure 2) to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) indicating that, “due to the finalization of the settlement operation, R.o.R. and map of the concerned village WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 3 of 13 covering the case land are in your custody, for which, you (Opposite Party No.3) are requested to make necessary correction in the R.o.R. and enter the same in Bhulekh.” 5. On the basis of such letter vide letter No.1615 dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure 2) of the ASO (O.P. No.2), the Opposite Party No.3 (Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) initiated mutation case No.4252 of 2024 and that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 was sent to the file of Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for its disposal. 6. As per final order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7), the Additional Tahasildar rejected that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 in spite of the direction/order of the Hon’ble courts in W.A. No.131 of 2023 for recording the case land in the name of the petitioner assigning the reasons that:- “Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the Superior Court with regard to entry in the R.o.R. However, in the instant case, the order for correction of the R.o.R. is not made by such Competent Superior Court to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Hence, this lower Revenue Court is unable to honour the request of learned ASO, Rental Colony in view of the above statutory provisions enshrined in OSS Act. However for the interest of the justice, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar file OSS Case WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 4 of 13 No.969 of 2024 under Section 32 of the OSS Act, 1958 in the court of learned Member Board of Revenue. Hence, till the outcome of the case, this mutation case is hereby rejected. Further after the disposal of the OSS case No.969 of 2024, this mutation may be reconsidered afresh as per the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue. Close the case, consign the record to record room.” 7. On being dissatisfied with the above order of rejection to the mutation case No.4252 of 2024 passed on dated 22.11.2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar as per Annexure-7, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the said Annexure 7 on the ground that, the impugned order vide Annexure 7 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar rejecting mutation case No.4252 of 2024 of the petitioner is contrary to law. Because, the said order has been passed by the Additional Tahasildar stating that, he (Additional Tahasildar) is not the subordinate authority of the High Court and he is not bound to obey (carry out) the order of the High Court passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023. In such order, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has projected him, as the Superior Authority of WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 5 of 13 the High Court and he is not bound to carry out the order/direction of the Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.131 of 2023. 8. It has been envisaged in Rule 34 of the OSS Rules, 1962 about the grounds, under which, correction of the record of rights and map is to be made. According to the Rule 34 of the OSS Rules, 1962, “The Tahasildar may on application in that behalf of any person interested or on receipt of a report from any of his subordinate officers or on receipt of a notice from the Registrar or sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registrar Act, 1908 or from a Court or on his own motion, order any change of any entry in the record of rights according to the rules herein after prescribed on any one or more of the following grounds namely:- (a) (b) (c) X X X X X X X X That being founded on a decree or order of a Civil Court or on the order of any Competent Authority, the entry therein is not accordance with such decree or order. (d) That such decree or order has subsequently been varied on appeal, revision or review. (e) X X X X WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 6 of 13 (f) X X X X 9. According to the provisions of law envisaged in Rule 34 of the OSS Rules 1962, the Tahasildar shall change the entries in the R.o.R. as per the order of any Court or of any Competent Authority. 10. As per the final order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 1) passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.131 of 2023, the Hon’ble Courts had directed to all the parties in that W.A. No.131 of 2023 i.e. State of Orissa, Assistant Settlement Officer, Collector, Khurdha and Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (those are also the Opposite Parties in the present writ) to enter the name of the petitioner of this writ i.e. Manjulata Jena in the R.o.R. of the case land as prayed for by her reserving the liberty of the Government to proceed in accordance with law under Section 3B of the OGLS Act. 11. But, in spite of the above specific direction of this Hon’ble Courts for recording the case land in the name of the petitioner (Manjulata Jena), Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar refused to carry out the above directions/orders of this Hon’ble Courts passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 expressing indirectly in the impugned order passed by him WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 7 of 13 (Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 in Annexure-7 that, he is not subordinate to the High Court. 12. As per the law Lexicon, High Court means, a Court having superior jurisdiction. Subordinate Court means, all the Courts subordinate to the High Court. High Court decision means, a Court just subordinate to High Court is bound to follow the decision in law of a Bench of that Court unless, the decision of the bench has been overruled by a decision of a Full Bench of that Court or unless it has been overruled expressly or impliedly on an appeal to his majesty in counsel or unless the law has been altered by a subsequent Act of the legislature. 13. In view of the aforesaid definitions provided in Law Lexicon, naturally Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars are subordinate to the High Court and High Court is the Higher Civil Court of appeal in any local area and the High Court is the Competent Authority to pass any order relating to any Civil nature of litigation, which includes the matter relating to WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 8 of 13 mutation involved in this writ petition in mutation case No.4252 of 2024. 14. So, the orders/directions given by the High Court to the Tahasildar and Additional Tahasildar in W.A. No.131 of 2023 are binding upon them and they are bound to respect the same, but, they (Tahasildars and Additional Tahasildars) have no authority to sit over the order of the High Court or to ignore the order of the High Court. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- that, Lower (i) In a case between Dr. Gati krisna Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 92 (2001) C.L.T. 801 revenue authorities including settlement authorities to obey and comply the direction given by the competent higher authorities. (ii)In a case between Sanatan Acharya Vrs. Tahasildar, Panposh & Others reported in 2016 (II) OLR 290 that, Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the Superior Court with regard to entry in the R.o.R. He has no authority to sit over the order of the Higher Authorities. 15. Here, in this writ at hand, when, as per final order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 1) passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023, this Hon’ble Court had directed the State, Assistant Settlement Officer, Collector, Khurdha and Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 9 of 13 enter the name of the petitioner Manjulata Jena in the R.o.R. of the case land, then, at this juncture, as per order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7) passed in mutation case No.4252 of 2024, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar should not have ignored the said order of the Hon’ble courts passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 stating that, the said order was not made by the Competent Superior Court. For which, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar should not have rejected the mutation case No.4252 of 2024, but, he should have honoured the direction of the Hon’ble Courts passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 and should have entered the name of the petitioner Manjulata Jena in the R.o.R. of the case land involved in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 in view of the above definitions made in the law Lexicon as well as the dictums of the Hon’ble Courts, but, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has not done so. For which, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is without jurisdiction and contrary to the law. Therefore, that order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 10 of 13 mutation case No.4252 of 2024 cannot be sustainable under law. 16. So, there is justification under law for making interference with the said order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7) passed in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for quashing the same and to direct the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the mutation case No.4252 of 2024 finally entering the name of the petitioner Manjulata Jena in the R.o.R. of the case land involved in that mutation case. 17. So far as, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the application under Section 32 of the OSS Act (Annexure 8) filed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar before the Board of Revenue is concerned, there is no justification under law to pass any order relating to the application under Section 32 of the OSS Act (Annexure 8) filed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar before the Board of Revenue in this writ petition, only for the reason that, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the grounds regarding the non-maintainability of the same before the Board of Revenue for the proper adjudication of the said application of WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 11 of 13 the Tahasildar under Section 32 of the OSS Act, 1988 before the Board of Revenue. As per the Discussions and observations made above, there is merit in the writ petition of the petitioner relating to her first prayer as discussed above. For which, the writ petition filed by petitioner is to be allowed in part. 18. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part on contest. 18. The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7) passed in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is quashed. 19. The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to enter the name of the petitioner Manjulata Jena in the case land involved in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 on the basis of the direction/order of the Hon’ble Courts on dated 11.04.2023 passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 and to dispose of that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 finally within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar allowing that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 in favour of the petitioner Manjulata Jena for entering her name into the case land of that mutation WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 12 of 13 case and to issue R.o.R of the case land to the petitioner entering her name in the same. 20. So far as, the 2nd prayer of the petitioner in the writ, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise her all grounds before the Board of Revenue for non-entertainment of the application under Section 32 of the OSS act filed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. 21. Registry is directed to communicate this order immediately to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar along with photo copies of the Annexure-1. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 11.03.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 13:00:10 WP(C) No.587 of 2025 Page 13 of 13