Quashed

Rasananda Majhi v. Tahasildar,Sadar Ctc

Orissa HC18 Mar 2019WP(C)/1735/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petitioner challenged an order remitting a land record correction application to the Tehasildar. Relying on precedents restricting such jurisdiction for final records, the court quashed the remand order and directed a de novo hearing by the Commissioner within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order remitting the matter to the Tahasildar was quashed. The case was remitted to the Commissioner for a de novo hearing within three months.

Rasananda Majhi Vs Tahasildar,Sadar Ctc — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.1735 of 2019

¶2

18.03.2019

¶3

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation, Settlement and Land Records, Orissa, Cuttack as opposite party no.3 in the cause title of the petition in Court today.

¶4

This petition challenges the order dated 12.5.2009, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation, Settlement and Land Records, Orissa, Cuttack, opposite party no.3, in Revision Petition No.19 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, opposite party no.3 remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, to conduct field enquiry, verify record and take up follow up action as per law.

¶5

The petitioner filed an application u/s.15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 before the Joint Commissioner Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, for correction of ROR. By order dated 12.5.2009, the opposite party no.3 remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Sadar Cuttack, to conduct field enquiry, verify record and take necessary action as per law.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manas Ranjan Khatua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The sole question that hinges for consideration as to whether the Commissioner

¶8

uks

¶9

¶10

Settlement has jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the Tahasidlar for adjudication in an application u/s.15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.

¶11

The subject matter of dispute is no more res integra. This Court in Sarat Chandra Sahu Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others, 82 (1996) CLT 321, the Division Bench of this Court held :

¶12

“Under Section 15(b) the Commissioner has been given the authority to decide the grievance of the parties in relation to final publication of record-of-rights. A statutory power by a statutory authority has to be exercised in a proper manner so that the litigants have a sense of satisfaction that their grievance, have been appropriately dealt with. The Commissioner should have done well to address himself on the merits of the case. But instead of doing so he passed the order of remand. While we are of the view that the operative portion of the impugned order relating to remand is absolutely unsustainable, yet we feel in the interest of justice the claim of the revisionist should be considered by the revisional authority within the parameter of revisional jurisdiction.”

¶13

In Smt. Bijaya Chatterjee Vrs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others, 2000 (II) OLR – 349, this Court held that in subsequent decision it has been clarified that though such remand is not contemplated, the

¶14

¶15

Commissioner can call for a report from the Tahasildar.

¶16

In view of the decisions cited supra, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to opposite party no.3 for de novo hearing. In order to avoid further delay, the petitioner shall appear before the opposite party no.3 on 29.03.2019, on which date, the opposite party no.3 shall fix the date of hearing and conclude the hearing of the case within a period of three months thereafter.

¶17

The petition is disposed of.

¶18

……………………… Dr.A.K.Rath, J.

uks

BK B