Remanded

Umesh Ch.Biswal v. Commissioner Land Records and Settlement

Orissa HC13 Apr 2021WP(C)/1176/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement's order dismissing a revision petition for failure to produce documents. The Court held that the Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the Act by not examining available certified copies and failing to recall officers before dismissing the revision. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.05.2017 set aside and matter remitted to Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack for fresh adjudication.

Umesh Ch.Biswal Vs Commissioner Land Records and Settlement — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C). No. 1176 of 2020

¶2

13.04.2021 This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶3

Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, leaned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party No.1.

¶4

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no conflicting interest as against private opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Hence, no notice need be issued to them.

¶5

The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure-4) passed by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.2179 of 1999, whereby he rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) to record the case land more fully described in the opening paragraph of the impugned order (for short ‘the case land’) exclusively in their name in view of the mutual partition recorded during settlement operation.

¶6

Mr. Nayak, leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case land was jointly recorded in the sabik R.O.R. in the name of the petitioners as well as the father of the opposite party Nos.2 to 5. During settlement operation, the petitioners as well as father of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 effect mutual partition of the case land and filed a ‘Kachapharda’ (allotment sheet)

¶7

¶8

before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who recorded a partition vide Yadast No. 89 (Annexure-5) assailing the case land in favour of the petitioners. It is his submission that the partition can be effected during settlement operation in case all the co-sharers agree. Section 19(1)(c) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 authorizes the Revenue Officer to effect partition on mutual agreement. In Notification No.36607/RC18/69/R, dated 10.06.1969, the State Government have appointed all Assistant Settlement Officers to be Revenue Officers in their respective areas. In support of the same, he relied upon the letter no.2450/LRS, Dated 25.02.1987 of the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack under Annexure-6.

¶9

In spite of the same, since the final R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act was jointly recorded in the name of the petitioners and the father of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 along with others, the petitioners filed revision under Section 15(b) of the Act, which was registered as Revision Petition No. 2179 of 1999. The revisional court on a finding that the petitioners have not filed original Hal R.O.R. No.252, 253 and 254, Sabik R.O.R. and Plot Index, dismissed the said revision.

¶10

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners filed all documents available with them, which is reflected in paragraph4.0 of the impugned order. Since the Board of Revenue

¶11

¶12

is custodian of all the records, the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack could have verified the same and passed necessary orders. By dismissing the revision, the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that it is the duty of the petitioners to file documents in support of their case. Admittedly, the petitioners had not filed the documents, as aforesaid. As such, the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack has committed no error in dismissing the revision. The petitioners may be directed to move the revisional court afresh by filing the aforesaid documents, which can be considered in accordance with law.

¶14

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioners have filed the copy of the R.O.R. of Hal Khata Nos. 252, 253 and 254 downloaded from the website of the Government, copy of the Hal R.O.R. No.258, certified copy of Yadast Nos.89 and 90 and written note of argument. From the above, it appears that the petitioners have made their best endeavour to produce documents in support of their case. If the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha,

¶15

¶16

Cuttack while adjudicating the matter, requires any further documents, it could have directed the parties to produce same or asked the concerned Tahasildar to produce those documents for just adjudication of the case. The Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack should not have shirked his responsibility by finding fault with the petitioners for non-production of documents, without examining documents available before him and to call for a report in respect of the same from the concerned Tahasildar or any other competent officer. It, thus, appears that the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack has failed to exercise the power conferred under Section 15(b) of the Act.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.05.2017passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack under Annexure-4 is not sustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-opposite party no.1 for fresh adjudication of the matter giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned keeping in mind the observations made above.

¶18

In order to avoid delay in disposal of the revision, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Land Record s and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-opposite party no.1 on 10.05.2021 along with authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the

¶19

¶20

website of the Orissa High Court to receive further instruction in the matter.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Since the writ petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the opposite party nos.2 to 5, they are at liberty to seek for variation of this order, if they feel aggrieved.

¶23

13.1 As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No. 4587 dated 25^th March, 2020.

¶24

……..……………………

¶25

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

¶26

Umesh Ch.Biswal v. Commissioner Land Records and Settlement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Ch.Biswal v. Commissioner Land Records and Settlement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakuntala Sahu Vs Arakhita Sahu

Alekha Rout Vs State of Odisha

Jogendranath Pradhan Vs Purna Chandra Mohapatra

M/S. Acrux Realcon Pvt.Ltd Vs Pradeep Kumar Sahu

Padma Lochan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Sekhar Patra Vs State of Odisha