Allowed¶25

Basanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Mar 2026WP(C)/2504/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha land records; ROR correction; recording of leasehold land in lessee's name; OGLS Act lease cancellation (S.3(b), S.7-A(3)); Settlement Act lacks power to cancel OGLS lease; OSS Act, 1958 settlement proceeding; Assistant Settlement Officer order set aside; Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directed to correct ROR within four weeks; Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha & Others, W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014 followed; Justice Sashikanta Mishra; decision dated 18.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Assistant Settlement Officer set aside; Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directed to correct the ROR entries and record the land in the petitioner's name within four weeks of production of certified copy of the order. ¶25

Basanta Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer rejecting recording of the petitioner's leasehold land in his favour ought to be quashed, and whether the Tahasildar should correct the ROR and record the land in the petitioner's name.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the law in this regard has already been decided by the Division Bench (in Narottam Rath, which the State counsel confirmed has not been challenged further), the writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to correct the entries in the ROR and record the land in the name of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.2504 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Sashikanta Mishra, J., order dated 18.03.2026): Basant Kumar Das, a lessee whose claim to have his land recorded in his name was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer in a proceeding under the OSS Act, 1958, sought quashing of that order and correction of the ROR by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision in Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014), which held that the OGLS Act (S.3(b), S.7-A(3)) amply provides for cancellation of a lease granted under it, whereas the Settlement Act contains no provision empowering its authorities to cancel an OGLS lease; the State counsel conceded that Narottam Rath had not been challenged further. Holding that the law was already settled by the Division Bench, the Court allowed the writ application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the ROR entries and record the land in the petitioner's name within four weeks of production of the certified copy.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2504 of 2026

¶3

Basant Kumar Das

.…

Petitioner

Represented by

Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate -Versus-

¶8

State of Odisha & Others

¶9

.… Opp. Parties Represented by Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER 18.03.2026

¶12

Order No. 04.

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶15

prayer:-

¶16

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule Nisi to the Opposite Parties and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or shown insufficient cause make the said rule absolute by directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the ROR under Annexure-6 and record the same in the name of the petitioner and quash the impugned undated order passed by the Opposite Party No.6 under Annexure-6:

¶17

And may pass any other appropriate order or orders or direction or directions for the ends of justice: And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

¶18

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted lease of the land in question a long time ago. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected his claim to record the land in his favour under a proceeding under the OSS Act, 1958. As such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

In this context, Ms. Mahapatra also relies upon the recent judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narottam Rath V. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.1608 of

¶21

2014) wherein the following was held:-

¶22

“ 8.3 xxx xxx xxx There is ample provision under the OGLS Act to cancel a lease granted in favour of a beneficiary. Section 3(b) and Section 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act makes elaborate provisions for cancellation of lease granted under the OGLS Act. There is no provision under the Settlement Act empowering the Authorities created under said Act to cancel a lease granted under the OGLS Act . x xx

¶23

xxx xxx”

¶24

Learned State counsel also fairly submits that the judgment in Narottam Rath(Supra) has not been challenged further.

¶25

Since, the law in this regard has already been decided by the division Bench, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to correct the entries in the ROR and record the same in the name of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶26

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Puspanjali Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 19-Mar-2026 17:06:51

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Basanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Kumar Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Sudan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Abdullah Khan Vs Jainual Abedin

Rabindra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Anadi Bhanja Vs State of Odisha

Sashikanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Chandra Sethi Vs State of Odisha