Bishnu Prasad Ray Vs State of Odisha

the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the correction of the SWATWA STATUS in the R.o.R. vide Anenxure-5 of the case land, because SWATWA STATUS of the case land, which was reflected in the R.o.R. vide Annexure-2 as DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA has been changed/corrected illegally to PATTADAR preparing the new R.o.R. vide Annexure-5 through an order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

¶15

without intimating the petitioner about such change/correction.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

2 . I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the

¶18

petitioner and learned SC for the State.

¶19

3 . The factual backgrounds of the writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the case land was in the name of the petitioner as per R.o.R. vide Annexure-2 indicating/reflecting its SWATWA STATUS as DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA vide Khata No.274/1379. The said R.o.R. vide Annexure-2 in the name of the petitioner in respect of the case land was prepared on dated 12.10.2021.

¶20

Surprisingly, on the basis of the Notification No.23868 dated 02.07.2025 vide Annexure-4 of the Government of Odisha, the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) changed the SWATWA STATUS of the case land in the R.o.R. vide Annexure-2 from DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA to PATTADAR through an order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without intimating the petitioner about such change/correction.

¶21

For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for quashing the SWATWA STATUS in the corrected R.o.R. vide Annexure5 of the case land.

¶22

4 . It is the undisputed case of the parties that, at the time of correction of SWATWA STATUS entry in the R.o.R. of the case land vide Annexure-2 from DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA to PATTADAR

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

through an order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 by the

¶25

Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2), no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, though as per the R.o.R. vide Annexure-2, the case land was/is in the name of the petitioner and the SATWA STATUS of the case land in the R.o.R. vide Annexure-2 was DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA.

¶26

5 . On this aspect, propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

¶27

In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath and another Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and Others reported in 1989 (2) OLR 135 that,

¶28

persons whose interests are likely to be affected are not made parties in the revision, still then, the Revision was allowed and when such persons pray for hearing of the revision afresh, then it is proper to re-open the matter to comply with the requirements of the principles of natural justice. For which, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merit.

¶29

6 . Here in this matter at hand, when, the R.o.R. of the case land vide

¶30

Annexure-2 was/is in the name of the petitioner and when in the R.o.R. vide Annexure-2, SWATWA STATUS of the case land was DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA and when the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) changed the SWATWA STATUS of the case land from DAKHAL SWATWA SUNYA to PATTADAR without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without intimating the petitioner and when by the said change/correction of SWATWA STATUS in the R.o.R. of the case land through an order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 by

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

the O.P. No.2, the interest of the petitioner has been affected, then at this

¶33

juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 is required to be reopened and the same is required to be decided afresh in presence of the petitioner after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶34

Therefore, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.

¶35

7 . In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

¶36

The final order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 by

¶37

the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) as well as the SWATWA STATUS in the corrected R.o.R. vide Annexure-5 as PATTADAR are quashed.

¶38

8 . The matter vide Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of 2 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the O.P. No.2.

¶39

The petitioner in this writ petition is directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) in Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 on 19.01.2026 and to file an objection in respect of his grievances annexing

¶40

the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Tahasildar, Jatni (O.P. No.2) as to further proceedings of

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

the Revenue Misc. Case No.989 of 2025 on the basis of the directions

¶43

given in the judgment.

¶44

9 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶45

(A.C. Behera), Judge.