Allowed

Satyanarayan Samantray v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Aug 2021WP(C)/7126/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directive to rectify a map error where the Amin corrected Plot No.128 instead of Plot No.129, obstructing a road. Court exercised Article 226 jurisdiction to direct Tahasildar to correct the map for Plot No.129 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Tahasildar, Pattamundai to correct the map in respect of Plot No. 129 instead of Plot No. 128 within three months.

Satyanarayan Samantray Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7126 of 2019

¶3

Satyanarayan Samantray

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. Debasis Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Sarojananda Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3)

¶8

Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.7)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 10.08.2021

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶15

Though this matter was listed for orders, on the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to Tahasildar, Pattamundai-Opposite Party No.3 to consider his representation dated 25.01.2019 under Annexure-7 and rectify the error committed by the Amin while effecting correction of the map in respect of Plot Nos. 121, 129 and 127/196 in mouza Praharajpur under Pattamundai tahasil.

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner that Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 7 had filed RP No. 455 of 2005 under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, ‘OSS Act’). Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Cuttack, vide his order dated 30^th December, 2008 (Annexure-2), disposed of the Revision directing Tahasildar, Pattamundai as under:

¶21

“7.0 In result, the revision petition is admitted and remanded to the Tahasildar, Pattamundai for disposal as per law, since no subordinate Settlement authorities are functioning in the field. The learned Tahasildar shall issue notice to the parties, give them an opportunity of being heard, verify relevant documents and maps, conduct field enquiry on the claim of the petitioners passing appropriate orders.”

¶22

Accordingly, Tahasildar, Pattamundai initiated RRP Case No. 455 of 2005 and directed to correct the map in respect of Plot Nos. 121, 129 and 127/196. While effecting such correction, the concerned Amin erroneously corrected the position of Plot No.128 instead of Plot No.129. It is submitted that Plot No.128 is used as a road, which being used by the Petitioner and other co-villagers as well. Thus, by such erroneous correction, the Petitioner and other co-villagers are being seriously prejudiced as their road has been obstructed.

¶23

In paragraph-4 of the Counter Affidavit filed by Tahasildar, Pattamundai-Opposite Party No.3, it is admitted that while preparing the map, concerned Amin corrected the position of Plot No.128 instead of Plot No.129. But, the Tahasildar expressed his inability to make any further correction stating that he has become functus officio and stated that parties may redress their grievance before the higher authority, i.e., the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Section 41 of the Act gives ample power to the Tahasildar to correct the clerical error, which has crept in accidentally or by omission while preparing ROR, map and entries made therein. As such, the Tahasildar has power to do the needful. He also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Nirmal Chandra Panigrahi and others Vs. State of Odisha and others , reported in 2021 (II) CLR 56, wherein this Court in paragraphs-19 and 20 held as follows:-

¶27

“19. The issue of writ of mandamus is a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directing to any person, corporation, requiring him or them to do some particular thing specified in it which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty.

¶28

20. In Controller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679: AIR 1987 SC 537, the apex Court observed:

¶29

"The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant consideration. In all such cases, the High Court can issue writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its direction. Supreme Court went to the length of even giving direction to promote the respondents as they had been wrongfully denied the same."

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

He, therefore submits that in the instant case, a writ of mandamus can be issued to the Tahasildar, Pattamundai to correct the error in the map accordingly.

¶33

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.7 submits that proper course of action is to direct the Tahasildar, Pattamundai to correct the map in respect of Plot No.129 in accordance with the order dated 26^th June, 2009 passed in RRP No.455 of 2005.

¶34

Mr. Mishra, learned AGA, however, submits that since the map has been erroneously prepared, the Tahasildar has become functus officio and the proper remedy for the Petitioner is to approach the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara in that regard.

¶35

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the factual position is not disputed. It is admitted by the parties that the Amin, while preparing map pursuant to the direction of the Tahasildar, Pattamundai in RRP Case No.455 of 2005, erroneously corrected the position of Plot No.128, which was never the direction of the Additional Tahasildar, Pattamundai. It is also admitted that Plot No.128 is used by the Petitioner and other co-villagers as road. Thus, it is a fit case where this Court can exercise power under Artilce-226 of the Constitution in view of the ratio decided in the case of Nirmal Chandra Panigrahi (supra).

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

9.1. Accordingly, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Pattamundai shall do well to give effect to order dated 26^th June, 2009 passed in RRP Case No.455 of 2005 in its letter and spirit and correct the map in respect of Plot No.129 accordingly.

¶39

9.2 The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶40

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

¶41

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶42

s.s.satapathy

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Satyanarayan Samantray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Samantray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Ch.Giri Vs Krupasindhu Das andORS

Sidharthini Tibrewal Vs Palanning Member, Cda and Ors.

Raghunath Nayak Vs Sub Collector, Balasore

Soubhagya Kumar Champaty Vs Jay Saikrishna Buildcon (P) Ltd.

Pitambar Sahoo Vs Niranjan Sahoo

Sudhanidhi Nayak Vs Commnr., C and S, Odisha