The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to record land in the petitioners' name pursuant to a prior Tahasildar order. The Court held the Tahasildar lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the correctness of Revenue Records under the Settlement Act, precluding implementation of the prior order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12337 OF 2020
Simanchala Acharya and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, Advocate -versus-
The State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Sarojananda Das, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
06.08.2021
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
name of the Government in ‘Abadajogya Anabadi’ Khata with a note of forcible possession in the name of the predecessors of the Petitioners. Subsequently, L.E. Case No.58 of 1983 was initiated against them under the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tahasildar, Kanisi while disposing of the said encroachment case, came to the following categorical finding:
“…….This Sabik Survey No.1 corresponds to Hal Plot No.288 i.e. the case land. On further scrutiny of Revenue Records and R.O.Rs. (produced by encroachers) it disclosed that U/s.7(1) of the O.E.A. Act, the case land was settled in favour of the encroachers in C.P. No.1111/1966 in the year 1969-70 and the R.I. has opened a reyati Khata bearing No.278/21 basing on the rent schedule. Rent was demanded upto 31.03.1976 as per Sabik records and subsequently rent for this plot has noted been demanded as the plot has been recorded under Govt. Khata in the final R.O.R. which came into force w.e.f.01.04.1976. This is therefore an error which would have been averted had the parties approached the Settlement which their claims and also the Tahasildar intimated the fact of settlement of the land to the settlement authorities in time.
Since the case land has already been settled and Rayati status assigned prior to finalization of R.O.Rl. the entry made in A.J.A. Khata is therefore not in conformity with the evidence on record.”
Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Kanisi directed to correct the revenue records in the name of the predecessors of the Petitioners vide order dated 22nd October, 1983. When the matter stood thus, eviction order was passed on 19th February, 2016 directing eviction of the Petitioners from the the case land in L.E. Case No.74 of 2016. Assailing the said order, the Petitioners moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2017, which was disposed of on 19th March, 2019 with the following order, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:
“Reading the above, this Court finds, there is no surviving of LEC No.74 of 2016 as it has been dropped since 19.2.2016. In the above premises, this Court finds, there is no proceeding
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
surviving the LEC No.74/2016 as of now. It is at this stage, this Court finds, there is an order involving LEC No.58 of 1983 thereby directing to settle the land in the name of Sri Jagdish Acharya and Balaram Acharya with effect from 1.4.1976 on rayati status. In the event there is no challenge to the above proceeding, both the parties will be abided by the order involved therein.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation”
Pursuant to the said observation, the Petitioners filed a representation before the Tahasildar, Kanisi to record the case land in their name. Since no action was taken by the Tahasildar, Kanisi to record the case land in their name pursuant to the developments discussed above, this writ petition has been filed for the relief, as aforesaid.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
jm
came to hold that final publication of the R.O.R. in Government Khata in ‘Abadajogya Anabadi’ status was erroneous. Such a finding is without jurisdiction as the authorities exercising power under the Act could not have delved into the correctness of the publication of R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act. Further, no step is apparently taken by the Petitioners for correction of the R.O.R. in their name under the provisions of the Settlement Act. Thus, this Court is not in a position to direct implementation of the said order, which is apparently without jurisdiction. It is true that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5790 of 2017 came to a conclusion that ‘ in the event there is no challenge to the above proceeding, both the parties will be abided by the order involved therein ’. But that itself does not give any vested right on the Petitioners to claim for recording of the case land on the basis of the order passed L.E. Case No.58 of 1983. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahasildar had jurisdiction to record findings regarding the correctness of Revenue Records published under the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act.
Whether an order of this Court in a previous proceeding confers a vested right to record land in the name of the petitioner without deduction of objections.
Whether this writ petition can be entertained when the underlying proceedings are without jurisdiction.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Simanchala Acharya and others
The State of Odisha and others
Justice K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
