Bibhuti Bhusan Ray Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.14523 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

--------------- Bibhuti Bhusan Ray ...… Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Ms. Sradha Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr.A.R. Dash, [Addl. Government Advocate]

¶5

___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶6

JUDGMENT 10^th March, 2026

¶7

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶8

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.29182 of 2022, whereby the prayer of

¶9

Page 1 of 10

¶10

the petitioner to record the land in question in his favour was disallowed.

¶11

Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be apt to mention that this is the seventh approach of the petitioner to this Court seeking more or less the same relief. That a citizen of this country has had to repeatedly knock the doors of this Court is by itself a matter of concern.

¶12

The land in question was settled in favour of one Bhaskar Sethi as a lessee under the provisions of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). The lessee, after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (OLR Act) and the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), sold the case land to the petitioner vide RSD No.1466/1985 dated 01.03.1950. The land was however, resumed in the year 2002 by invoking power under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act but without serving any notice on the petitioner. The petitioner having approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2009, a

¶13

Page 2 of 10

¶14

Division Bench, by order dated 29.07.2011 set aside the order of resumption in respect of the case land. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.80 of 2012 before the Tahasildar for correction of Hal-ROR but as no action was taken for years together, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8307 of 2014. By order dated 25.06.2014, this Court directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within four months. While the matter stood thus, settlement operation commenced in the area in question. Despite requests by the petitioner, the settlement authorities recorded the land in the name of Government as Abada Jogya Anabadi . The petitioner filed a revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, before the Board of Revenue. By order dated 29.07.2022, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court under Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the case by directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the land in favour of the petitioner after verifying all original/relevant documents and conducting a field enquiry.

¶15

Page 3 of 10

¶16

The petitioner filed the aforementioned mutation

¶17

case, which not being disposed of for long, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2023. This Court, by order dated 30.08.2023 directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within two months. The petitioner had to file contempt application before this Court in view of noncompliance. Ultimately, the mutation case was heard and disposed of by disallowing the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order.

¶18

The State did not file any counter, though, the State counsel preferred to make oral submissions. Notice on the private Opposite Parties was duly served but there was no appearance from their side.

¶19

Heard Ms. Sradha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶20

Ms. Das assails the impugned order by submitting that the Tahasildar exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking power under the provisions of OGLS Act while considering the mutation proceeding under OSS Act. She

¶21

Page 4 of 10

¶22

further submits that even otherwise, once a Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of resumption under Section 3(b) of the OGLS Act, it is no longer open to the Tahasildar to reopen the issue unilaterally. Further, the order of the Tahasildar also runs contrary to the order passed by the revisional Court under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act.

¶23

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government

¶24

Advocate fairly submits that as per the provisions of OSS Act, the Tahasildar has to act as per the directions issued by the revisional Court.

¶25

The facts of the case are not disputed. The land leased out in favour of the original lessee was resumed purportedly under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act as per order dated 16.07.2002 passed in W.L. Case No.909 of 1972. Said order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.07.2011, set aside the order insofar as it relates to the land purchased by the

¶26

Page 5 of 10

¶27

petitioner. Said order was never challenged and has thus attained finality.

¶28

In the Hal settlement operations, the land was again recorded in Government Khata as Abada Jogya Anabadi as per ROR published on 14.11.2013. The petitioner questioned the same before the Board of Revenue in a revision petition under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act. By order dated 29.07.2022, the revisional authority after noting all relevant facts inter alia, held as follows:-

¶29

“The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to verify all original/relevant documents and conduct a field enquiry and after due verification the suit plot may be recorded in favour of the present petitioner following due process of law.

¶30

True copy of order sent to Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar with a separate letter for information and necessary action.

¶31

Order pronounced in the open Court today the 29^th day of July of 2022.

¶32

On such basis, the petitioner filed the mutation

¶33

case in question, which came to be rejected on 23.02.2024. In the writ application (W.P.(C) No.8361 of

¶34

Page 6 of 10

¶35

2024), this Court again disposed of the writ application inter alia, holding as follows:-

¶36

“6.2. This Court after going through the order passed under Annexure-1 and Annexure-5 is of the view that the land purchased by the petitioner from the original lessee is required to be recorded in his name taking into account the nature of the land and its use.

¶37

6.3. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order dated 23.02.2024 so passed by the Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-8, remits the matter to the said authority to record the land in the name of the petitioner so purchased by him from the original lessee taking into account the nature of the land and its use within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶38

Thus, there are as many as three orders, one by a Division Bench, one by a Single Bench of this Court and the other by the Revisional Authority under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, in favour of the petitioner.

¶39

Reading of the impugned order reveals that the Tahasildar after verification of records held as follows:-

¶40

“The applied land stood recorded in Govt. khata and in the Hal ROR, it also stands recorded in Govt. khata. It is revealed from the report of R.I. concerned, the purchased land is not being used for the purpose of agriculture for which it was leased out. It is pertinent to mention here that Tahasildar as a statutory authority and is strictly governed by the provisions contained as per 3(B) of O.G.L.S Act, 1962, since the O.G.L.S Act 1962 is of widest amplitude. There is no fitter on the portion of Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasildar to resume the lease hold land. In view of the above facts, the claim of the petitioner is disallowed and the case is disposed of.”

¶41

Page 7 of 10

¶42

[Emphasis added]

¶43

It would be proper at this stage to refer to the power conferred upon the Tahasildar in the mutation proceeding. Rule 35 of the OSS Rules, 1962 being relevant, is extracted herein below:-

¶44

“All proceedings commenced on a report, application or otherwise under this Chapter shall be registered as mutation cases and each such case shall be numbered and entered in register in Form No.8 to be called the Mutation Register:

¶45

Provided that changes in any entry of the record-of-rights arising out of an order to decree of Revenue or a Civil Court or the order of a Tribunal constituted under any law for the time being in force shall be numbered and entered in the Register as separate cases and carried out by the Tahasildar immediately on receipt of such order or decree, as the case may be, and it shall not be necessary to commence a Mutation Proceeding for that purpose”

¶46

Plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that once a Superior Court/Authority has issued a direction for recording of the land, the Tahasildar has no option but to comply with the same. The direction of the Superior Authority to verify the records/documents and to conduct field enquiry has to be understood in the above context and not interpreted as conferment of independent power on the Tahasildar to decide the case afresh.

¶47

Page 8 of 10

¶48

Even otherwise, the mutation proceeding is initiated under the provisions of OSS Act read with the rules framed thereunder. On the other hand, resumption of leased land is governed under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act. Obviously, the Tahasildar exercising power conferred by the OSS Act and the rules framed thereunder cannot overreach his jurisdiction by encroaching upon any subject matter covered under the OGLS Act. This unilateral usurpation of power by the Tahasildar cannot be countenanced in law. The Tahasildar, in the impugned order has described himself as a statutory authority strictly governed by the provisions of Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act overlooking the fact that the power to be exercised by him in a mutation proceeding is derived not from the said Act but from the OSS Act. His further observation that there is no fetter (wrongly mentioned as ‘fitter’) on the power (wrongly mentioned as ‘portion’) of Tahasildar to resume the leasehold land is completely fallacious and contrary to all canons of law and legal procedure. Needless to mention, the Tahasildar in a

¶49

Page 9 of 10

¶50

mutation proceeding is bound and fettered by the Limitations Prescribed in Rules 34 and 35 of the Rules, which he cannot overcome.

¶51

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds considerable force in the contentions advanced by the petitioner and holds that the impugned order, being a product of gross illegality, cannot be sustained.

¶52

In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tahasildar is directed to record the land in question in favour of the petitioner without any further delay, and in any case, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶53

……..…………………..

¶54

(Sashikanta Mishra), Judge

¶55

Signature Not Verified High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Digitally Signed The 10^th of March, 2026/Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAIDesignation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Mar-2026 16:20:22

¶56

Page 10 of 10

Bibhuti Bhusan Ray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibhuti Bhusan Ray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mahadev Real Estate Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha

M/S Mahadev Real Estate Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

M/S Mahadev Real Estate Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Gouri Vs State

Abhiram Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Chandra Bagh Vs State of Odisha