This disposed the writ petition regarding a land settlement objection. Directed the petitioner to file a revision under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, to correct the Revenue Record of Rights.
Petitioner directed to file revision under Section 15(b) within two months; authorities to decide on merits without delay objection.
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. 28250 of 2013
Debasis Mohanty ..… Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar Choudhury, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
04.05.2022
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
on 27th May, 1998 in respect of the entire case land. Accordingly, the Petitioner became the rightful owner in possession of the case land. During Settlement operation, Yadast was prepared in the name of the Petitioner, but subsequently Objection Case No.5811/575 of 2012 was initiated at the instance of Government of Odisha. The ASOOpposite Party No.3, without serving any notice on the Petitioner passed the impugned order under Annexure-4.
3.1 It is his submission that the case land settled in the name of the vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Radhu Nayak in WL Case No.137 of 1968-69 is still valid. The land settled in favour of said Lessee was never cancelled or varied by any competent authority. As such, he continued to be the rightful owner in possession over the case land. Due to his legal necessity, he by virtue of two RSDs (Annexure-2) sold the leasehold property in favour of the Petitioner. Since the date of purchase, the Petitioner is in peaceful possession over the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon. ASO without serving any notice on the Petitioner, allowed the objection case observing that the concerned Tahasildar did not produce any record with regard to lease granted in favour of Radhu Nayak. Such a ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Had the Petitioner been given opportunity, he would have produced the records to record the case land in his name. In that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the order under Annexure-4 and remit the matter back to the ASO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the publication of the final Revenue Record of Rights.
What remedy is available to the petitioner regarding the recorded land rights.
Whether the revisional authority can be directed to decide the matter on merit despite delay in filing the revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Debasis Mohanty
State of Odisha
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
